Case: Coal India Ltd.  Vs. Domco Smokeless Fuels (P) Ltd

India with the Secretary of Coal being the Chairman. In such a committee, a technical expert in coal should also be associated as most of the projects involve consumers of coal, particularly manufacturers of hard coke and smokeless fuel. In our opinion, it may not be difficult to find out, having regard to the technologies used therein as regards the ratio of the input vis-à-vis the output, with a balance and 10% margin. On the basis of such finding alone, apart from the requirements of five years, supply should form the basis of MPQ. We may, however, hasten to add that the Central Government in collaboration with the coal companies would be at liberty to evolve a policy which would meet the requirements of public interest vis-à-vis the interest of consumers of coal. They would be entitled to lay down such norms as may be found fit and proper. They would be entitled to fix appropriate norms therefor. In the event, any industrial unit is found to violate the norms, it should be stringently dealt with. 16. It is stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India that pursuant to the said direction, a Committee has been constituted and it is expected that a report would be submitted within a few weeks. It is, however, not necessary for us to consider that aspect of the matter. Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter-alia would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellant to transfer the linkage of coal from BCCL to the CCL Drawing our attention to the report of the Committee, it was submitted that keeping in view the shortage of coal faced by Central Coalfields Ltd., such a direction would cause enormous difficulties in working out of the linkage system itself. It was further submitted that even on fact, the respondent cannot be said to have a good case as from Bahri, the distance of the collieries belonging to Central Coalfields Ltd. and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. are almost same. 17. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted; (i) In view of the No Objection granted by CCL, it is not now permissible for the appellant to suggest that supply of coal from Central Coalfields Ltd. would cause enormous difficulty to it. (ii) Having regard to the clear representation made by the Coal India Ltd., in its advertisement of 1987 as also the minutes of meeting held on 17.11.1993 pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the appellant altered its position by investing a huge amount by setting up its industry of smokeless fuel, the doctrine of promissory estoppel shall apply in the instant case. (iii) In the light of the provisional decision taken by CIL in the matter of grant of supply of coal i.e. 50% from BCCL and 50% from CLL, the High Court cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appellant to take a final decision in the matter having regard to the immense difficulties which are being faced by the respondent as also the financial implication attaching thereto. (iv) Appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India was enjoined with a duty to exercise its jurisdiction in a reasonable manner (v) When an opportunity had been granted to a State to correct an error in the matter of exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, the High Court in a given case may issue a Writ of Mandamus also. 18. In M/s. Ashoka Smokeless (supra), this Court has in details discussed the validity or otherwise of the linkage scheme vis-à-vis the changed policy decision of the Coal India Ltd. for selling coal on e-Auction. While arriving at the said decision, this Court has also taken into consideration various aspects of the matter including applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in a case of this nature. 19. The question, however, is whether in a case of this nature and particularly having regard to the subsequent materials which have been brought on records, the respondent was entitled to the reliefs prayed for by it or not. 20. We have noticed hereinbefore the orders passed by the learned Single Judge from time to time. Whereas The entitlement of the entrepreneur must be traced to the policy decision of the Coal India Ltd. and the directions issued by the Central Government from time to time in exercise of its power under Clause 6 of the Coal Control Order, 2000, the respondent also was required to make necessary averments therefore in its writ petition as to how it had derived a legal right in regard to transfer of linkage. The pleadings of the parties are not before us. We have noticed hereinbefore that certain subsequent events have also taken place. Even if the respondent becomes entitled to the reliefs prayed for herein, an opportunity in that behalf is required to be given to the appellant also. Respondent has raised before us questions of discrimination which is also required to be gone into. One of the questions which would thus, arise for consideration would be as to whether the CILs policy decision would be covered by the earlier policy decision having regard to the doctrine promissory estoppel. 21. Several other factors as noticed hereinbefore have been brought on record in the light of the inspection report submitted before this Court. It is not possible for us to go into the said question particularly in view of the fact that the pleadings of the parties are not before us. 22. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be sub served if the High Court is directed to consider the matter afresh. The parties shall be entitled to file additional affidavits in the writ proceeding. Respondent may in view of the subsequent events amend its writ petition.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be sub served if the High Court is directed to consider the matter afresh. The parties shall be entitled to file additional affidavits in the writ proceeding. Respondent may in view of the subsequent events amend its writ petition. In such an event, the High Court would not only consider the matter from the perspective of the original prayer made in the writ petition, but also the reliefs which may be found to be available to the respondent in view of the subsequent events including the Report of the Inspection Committee. Till an appropriate order is passed by the High Court, status quo as obtaining today in regard to supply of coal shall continue. As the matters are being remitted to the High Court, we do not intend to pass any separate order in the contempt petition18. In M/s. Ashoka Smokeless (supra), this Court has in details discussed the validity or otherwise of the linkage schemes the changed policy decision of the Coal India Ltd. for selling coal on. While arriving at the said decision, this Court has also taken into consideration various aspects of the matter including applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in a case of this nature19. The question, however, is whether in a case of this nature and particularly having regard to the subsequent materials which have been brought on records, the respondent was entitled to the reliefs prayed for by it or notl other factors as noticed hereinbefore have been brought on record in the light of the inspection report submitted before this Court. It is not possible for us to go into the said question particularly in view of the fact that the pleadings of the parties are not before us, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be sub served if the High Court is directed to consider the matter afresh. The parties shall be entitled to file additional affidavits in the writ proceeding. Respondent may in view of the subsequent events amend its writ petition.