Bihar Hard Coke Mazdoor Congre Vs M/S Coal India Limited And Ors.

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the ECL : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate For the BCCL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate

¶23

11/ 09.01.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner- Bihar Hard Coke Mazdoor Congress, a Trade Union impleading the M/s Coal India Limited, Kolkata and others as party- respondents for direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent(s) to supply of the linkage quantity of coal to the Hard Coke Plant running under the name and style of M/s Gee Tee Hard Coke Traders, Dhanbad.

¶25

2. The main prayer is that respondents be directed to supply the entire 75% of the coal being 25200 MT as agreed vide agreement between the respondentauthorities and the partners of M/s Gee Tee Hard Coke Traders, Dhanbad from M/s Eastern Coalfields Limited and 45% from M/s BCCL.

¶26

3. At the threshold, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents (ECL), the petitioner /Trade Union has not locus standi to file the Writ Petition, as it was not a party to the said agreement for supply of coal. The said firm has not authorized the petitioner –Trade Union to move before this Court under the Writ Jurisdiction for the said relief.

¶27

2

¶28

4. Writ Petition can be maintainable where there is no other efficacious and alternative remedy for the same as no legal right of the petitioner /Trade Union has been infringed. In Para-26 of the Writ Petition, out of the 25200 MT, only 8500 Metric Tonnes of coal is being supplied.

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of maintainability has submitted that the petitioner –Trade Union is representing altogether 125 workers who are working in the said industry and their right of livelihood of fundamental right is being affected due to inadequate supply of coal by the Respondent(s)- CCL.

¶30

6. This Court is of the view that instant writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that no legal right of the Petitioner Trade Union has been violated to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Indisputably it was not a privy to the agreement between the firm and the Respondent Companies for supply of the hard coke. BCCL (R Nos.8-11) has taken definite stand in the counter affidavit that Petitioner was not a party to the Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) 30.09.2008. Firm has neither filed the writ petition nor it has authorised the Petitioner to represent it. It has been held in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev , AIR

¶31

1964 SC 685

¶32

8. On the merits, the position is absolutely clear. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226. (emphasis supplied)

¶33

It has been held in Verigamto Naveen v. Govt. of A.P. , (2001) 8 SCC 344

¶34

21. On the question that the relief as sought for and granted by the High Court arises purely in the contractual field and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution This Court does not find the instant writ petition to be maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶36

Sandeep/

¶37

Uploaded.

Bihar Hard Coke Mazdoor Congre v. M/S Coal India Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bihar Hard Coke Mazdoor Congre v. M/S Coal India Limited And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Shiv Ranjani Prasad Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board

Meera Debi Vs Shyama Debi And Ors.

Ahli Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Bipin Bihari Pandey Vs Rajeshwar Kumar Paswan And Ors.

Bharat Sewak Samaj Mahila Coll Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Narang Distillery Limited Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.