This writ appeal challenged the dismissal of a petition seeking a direction to supply coal at notified rates. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, lacking a standing linkage, was treated par with newer units and could not claim discriminatory treatment based on price不同 for pre-2007 industries.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1186 OF 2012
Dt: 21-09-2012.
Between:
MARUTHI ISPAT & ENERGY PRIVATE LTD., RAMA TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, TSK CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.PRAMOD AGARWAL D.NO.3.4.181, TOBACCO BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD .. APPELLANT
AND GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COAL, SASTRY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ appeal is directed against an order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge on 7th September, 2012 in W.P.No.17257 of 2010, which was filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in pricing the coal proposed to be supplied to the petitioner in Letter No.Hyd/MKT/A/FSA/100/2007, dated 16.06.2010 at “Cost Plus” (Weighted Average E-Auction Price) as arbitrary, illegal and void and to consequently direct the respondents to price the supply of 6000 tons of coal per month to the petitioner at the notified rate at which coal is being supplied to old (started prior to November, 2007 sponge) iron factories.
It appears that the petitioner is a sponge iron-manufacturing factory with 200 TPD and that the raw material for sponge iron is iron ore. It further appears that the petitioner applied for coal supply to the Singareni Collieries Limited through District Industries Centre, Kurnool. The Singareni Collieries company offered 600 tons of coal per month under Cost Plus category (weighted average ‘E’ auction price). The petitioner contended that Singareni Collieries has been supplying coal to the other consumers at supply price and therefore charging “Cost Plus” for supply of coal to the petitioner is discriminatory and necessary direction is required to be given to respondents 2 and 3 for supply of 600 tons of coal per month at the notified rate as being supplied to old iron factories.
It appears, the Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel
appearing for the parties, duly recorded the facts which are not in dispute in the matter in question and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no linkage approved by the Standing Linkage Committee as on 6.11.2007 and that the petitioner had only applied before the authorities for such coal only in May, 2010, which will be evident from the letter addressed by them on 28.5.2010. It further appears that on 16.6.2010 the said company duly informed the petitioner that it has been proposed to allot 6000 tons of coal per month for 200 TPD on adhoc basis for a period of six months and FSA to be entered with the unit for the period 2010-2012, under Cost plus category (Weighted Average E-auction price). It is also not in dispute that on 18.06.2010 by a letter the said petitioner/appellant herein duly addressed to the said company and stated as follows:
“ We thank you very much for allotting 6,000 Mts of coal for our 200 TPD on adhoc basis for a period of six months under Cost-plus category (Weighted Average E-auction price) for which FSA to be entered.
We therefore shall thank you to please let us have the price list to enable us to make the payment, at your earliest and oblige.”
It appears that the petitioner/appellant itself admitted by the said letter dated 18.06.2010 the said proposition given by the said company. It further appears that the petitioner/appellant itself stated in the reply filed before the Hon’ble single Judge that two industries, viz., M/s.Pioneer Tar Steel Limited, Hyderabad and M/s.Amma Ispat, Nalgonda are being supplied coal even without any linkage at notified price. It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the respondents are showing hostile discrimination to the industries started after 06.11.2007. Respondents 2 and 3 filed rejoinder on 7.12.2010, wherein it has been specifically clarified the position and stated that such offer has been given to the said industries as they were old customers drawing coal prior to 6.11.2007 and additional quantity for these two units is considered under cost plus category. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that they have acted discriminatorily in the matter in question cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble single Judge, has further noted that since the
petitioner has no linkage approved by the Standing Linkage Committee, it cannot insist the respondents 2 and 3 to supply coal at the notified price and that the petitioner/appellant has been treated on par with the customers who have come into existence with the respondents 2 and 3 after 06.11.2007. In these circumstances, his Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Hon’ble single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have considered the facts of the case and the material placed before us. The fact which was tried to be improved before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner was by drawing our attention to a letter dated 25.06.2010, wherein it has been stated that the appellant expressed their thankfulness to the company and prayed for copies of authority and also the references of formulated authorities of their own of Singareni Collieries Company Limited and Government Notification, G.O., etc. to charge extra Weighted Average E-Auction Price Plus Coal Price, at the earliest, under the RTI Act. Further, we have considered the letter which has been addressed by the writ petitioner on 14.07.2010 to the Chief General Manager (Marketing) of the said company, where from it would be evident that the petitioner had knowledge about all the facts in the matter in question which would be evident from the following statement made by them in the said letter.
“ We bring to your kind notice that the difference of price of Coal for Industries commissioned prior to 2007 and Industries commissioned after 2007 is Rs.750/- (approx) per Ton. The requirement of Coal for manufacturing 1 Ton of Sponge Iron is 35 Tons. With the result the new Industries have to incur about Rs.2,250/- more cost and this is leading to discriminatory treatment and we are not able to compete with the old Industries in pricing.
We, therefore, request your goodself to price the Coal at the same rate as is being charged to Industries commissioned prior to 2007.”
Therefore, the difference in the price of Coal for Industries commissioned
prior to 2007 and Industries commissioned after 2007 is Rs.750/approximately. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot agitate the said point that discrimination has been shown by the respondent- company.
In view of the above, we do not find that there is any merit in this writ appeal, nor, we find that the order so passed by his Lordship suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Further, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition after knowing the facts, only for the purpose of getting an order and hence the same is misconceived.
Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,
J )
Dt: 21-09-2012.
TNB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant can compel the respondents to supply coal at notified rates despite lacking an approved standing linkage approved by the Standing Linkage Committee.
Maruthi Ispat & Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
