Case: Gujarat Ambuja Cement  Vs. Union Of India

of the Constitution of India. For deciding the aforesaid question, evidence was led by the contesting parties before the High Court and more voluminous evidence is led before us by the contesting parties in these appeals. However, unfortunately, the High Court in the impugned judgment has not thought it fit to address itself to this moot question presumably because of the stand as taken by learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the basis of counter filed in the High Court on their behalf that the grievance of the writ petitioners was academic as it was free for them not to purchase coal from these premium collieries by paying 10% more and they could well purchase coal from other collieries which were supplying requisite coal to them at cheaper rates. It is this stand which, as we have noted earlier, appealed to the High Court for disposing of the writ petitions without going into the main question in controversy between the parties as aforesaid. It is true that the stand of the respondents before the High Court was that it was not compulsory for the writ petitioners to purchase coal from premium collieries. It is also true that the same stand is reiterated before us by learned senior counsel for the respondents. But the real grievance of the writ petitioners which unfortunately remained unnoticed by the High Court is that during the relevant period with which we are concerned in the present proceedings, from a practical point of view, it was almost impossible for the writ petitioners to lift the coal from any other colliery except from these premium collieries on account of various problems faced by the writ petitioner manufacturers of cement as tried to be highlighted before us in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioners in Civil Appeal No. 2245 of 1996 at pages 265 to 268. It was contended before us in the light of the aforesaid grievance categorised in the said additional affidavit that during the relevant time production, distribution and sale of coal was a monopoly of the Union of India and that this power was conferred under the Colliery Control Order of 1945. The quotas of coal were allotted by Central Government under the said Order to the consumers of coal. The bulk transportation of coal was also under the Control of Union of India inasmuch as the same could only be done through railways as the railways are the monopoly of the Union of India. The price at which the coal had to be sold was fixed by the Central Government in the said Order of 1945. The quantity of coal allotted to bulk of consumers like the writ petitioners was admittedly being controlled by the linkage committee of the Central Government since the last number of years. Because of the direction of the linkage committee the coal allotted to the writ petitioners had to be lifted from the colliery assigned to it by the said committee. Therefore, there was no choice left to the writ petitioners in connection with lifting of coal from the colliery concerned. It was, therefore, submitted that it would not be correct to assume as done by the High Court that the grievance of the writ petitioners was imaginary or of academic nature. 9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we have reached the conclusion that the High Court simply assumed that the main grievance of the writ petitioners against 10% hike in price by way of premium was only of academic nature. The High Court had also not gone into the question whether the said grievance was really academic in view of the difficulties tried to be projected by the writ petitioners in that connection and which were highlighted before us by the aforesaid additional affidavit of the appellants in the leading appeal. Similar grievances were voiced before us by learned counsel of the other appellants whose writ petitions were also disposed of by the common judgment. Therefore, it was for the High Court to consider whether the grievance of the writ petitioners had become really academic in nature and if it was not of academic nature, then the question regarding the merits of the pricing policy in the light of the limited inquiry which was required to be undertaken on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India had to be gone into by the High Court on a consideration of the voluminous evidence produced before it by the respective parties in support of their rival contentions. 10. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned common judgment and restore all the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners before the High Court in their original numbers for decision of the High Court on merits. The High Court is requested to consider the question whether the impugned premium of 10% as charged by the respondents from the writ petitioners is, in any way, violative of guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also to go into the question whether the said grievance of the writ petitioners was really academic in nature or was a subsisting one requiring adjudication by the Court. All these questions will have to be considered by the High Court in the remanded proceedings. We would also request the High Court to decide all these questions including the main controversy on merits, even if after hearing the parties concerned, the High Court is once again inclined to take the view that the grievance of the petitioners was of academic nature. In that case the High Court may examine the said main grievance in the alternative. This request is made to the High Court in order to avoid any future possibility of further remand to the High Court in case its decision on the academic nature of writ petitioners grievance gets upset in the hierarchy of proceedings.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. In our view, the aforesaid rival contentions would squarely pose the main question whether the charging of 10% premium over the price given in Table II to the impugned notification can be treated to be so unreasonable and arbitrary as to fall foul on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For deciding the aforesaid question, evidence was led by the contesting parties before the High Court and more voluminous evidence is led before us by the contesting parties in these appeals. However, unfortunately, the High Court in the impugned judgment has not thought it fit to address itself to this moot question presumably because of the stand as taken by learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the basis of counter filed in the High Court on their behalf that the grievance of the writ petitioners was academic as it was free for them not to purchase coal from these premium collieries by paying 10% more and they could well purchase coal from other collieries which were supplying requisite coal to them at cheaper rates. It is this stand which, as we have noted earlier, appealed to the High Court for disposing of the writ petitions without going into the main question in controversy between the parties as aforesaid. It is true that the stand of the respondents before the High Court was that it was not compulsory for the writ petitioners to purchase coal from premium collieries.