COAL INDIA LID. AND ORS. versus DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS (P) LID.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

). 
COAL INDIA LID. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS (P) LID. 
MAY 15, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Coal-Setting up smokeless fuel unit on assurance of supply of coal-
r -, . 
Coal linkage-Transfer of-Sought by the unit-Denial thereof--Cha//enged-
_. 
Direction for transfer by High Court-Appeals to Supreme Court-During 
pendency of appeals, certain subsequent events taking place-Held : Matter c 
remitted to High Court in view of subsequent events and since in absence of 
.... 
pleading made before High Court it is not clear as to whether the entrepreneur 
had made averments as to how he derived legal right for transfer of linkage-
Coal Control Order, 2000-Clause 6. 
D 
Respondent had set up a unit for production of smokeless fuel, on a 
• 
representation made by the appellant by way of an advertisement inviting new 
entrepreneurs to set up new smokeless fuel units wherefor supply of coal to 
them was assured. Respondent was given coal linkage with the collieries 
T 
belonging to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. 
(CIL). In a meeting, it was decided to review the linkage of SSF plants in order E 
to rationalize the linkage so that the units would get their supplies from the 
nearest suitable sources containing SSF grade coal. 
On the basis of decision in the meeting, respondent applied for transfer 
of his linkage from BCCL to Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL). The same was F 
denied in view of its policy that once it is accorded, the same would be 
JI 
permanent in nature. However, temporary transfer of linkage to the extent of 
y 
50% of the quantity was given to the respondent and also to one other 
company. The order of temporary transfer was questioned by the respondent 
in Writ Petition. Pending Writ Petition, CIL granted permanent change of 
linkage in favour of the other company, but not to the respondent, despite the G 
fact that CCL had given 'No Objection' certificate to both the units by a 
common letter. The Writ Petition was allowed by High Court directing the 
appellant to transfer the linkage of coal from BCCL to CCL. Hence the 
-'>: 
present appeals. 
787 
H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
During pendency of the appeals, pursuant to order of this court, the unit 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of the respondent was inspected and report thereof was filed. In the meantime, 
the question of linkage vis-a-vis, the changed policy decision of Coal India 
Ltd. to sell coal on e-auction was considered by this Court. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. 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 this court. 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 this court 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 CIL's policy decision would be 
covered by the earlier policy decision having regard to the doctrine of 
promissory estoppel. Several other factors have been brought on record in 
the light of the inspection report submitted before this Court. It is not possible 
for this court to go into the said question particularly in absence of the 
pleadings of the parties. (Paras 20 and 21) (798-A, B, C, DJ 
2. Therefore, interest of justice shall be subserved ifthe 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. [Para 22) (798-E, F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.