1997 Supreme(SC) 511

1997(5) Supreme 359
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Coal India Ltd. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
M/s. Continental Transport and Construction Corporation & Ors. etc.                    -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2004 of 1997
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25988 of 1995)
[With Civil Appeal No. 2005 of 1995 (@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26366 of 1995)]
Decided on 18-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Advocate, Manish Mishra, Advocate with him for M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent : Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, H.K. Puri, N.D.B. Raju, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 3 : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Anubha Jain, Ashok Bhan, Harish Chander, Advocates.

Headnote:Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -Section 16-Colliery Control Order, 1945-Clause 8-Notification dated 24.7.1967, as amended by Notifications dated 4.6.1992 and 25.8.1993-Contract for supply of Steam Coal from Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries-Petitioners prayer to supply the said quantity and quality of steam coal from another colliery which had not been offered for sale-Whether Coal Controller was competent to give such a direction?-(Yes)-Whether it was incumbent upon the Coal Controller to have afforded an opportunity to appellants before giving impugned direction in exercise of power under Clause 8?-(No)-Direction given by Coal Controller was binding on appellant-Writ of mandamus could be issued.

       Held : The Colliery Control Order assigns an important role to the Coal Controller, as defined in Clause 2(1)(a), in the matter of enforcement of its various provisions. In certain clauses (clauses 3A, 7 and 10A) power has been expressly conferred on the Coal Controller and, in addition, there is clause 15 whereby the functions of the Central Government under Clauses 8, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 12E 12F, 13 and 14 can also be exercised by the Coal Controller. It is, therefore, open to the Coal Controller in exercise of the power under clause 8 to given directions regulating the disposal of stocks of coal by any colliery owner and such directions may be as to class, grade, size and quantity of coal which may be disposed of and person or class or description of persons to whom coal shall or shall not be disposed. The impugned directions dated April 12, 1994 that were given by the Coal Controller were in the nature of a special direction given by the Coal Controller in exercise of power under clause 8. In view of clause 9 the said directions could override the contract entered into by CCL with the petitioners regarding supply of coal from a particular colliery or washery. (Para 16)

       Further held : LSS-II was framed in pursuance of the Notification dated July 24, 1967, as modified by notification dated June 4, 1992. As indicated earlier, the said notifications were in the nature of a general authority given to the Central Government under clause 12E of the Colliery Control Order. This only means that in respect of coal covered by LSS-II it was permissible for the colliery owners to dispose of the coal covered by the said Scheme without obtaining prior authority from the Central Government. But this does not mean that the Coal Controller is deprived of his powers under the Colliery Control Order to give directions regarding the disposal of the coal which is dealt with under LSS-II. The said coal also falls within the ambit of the Colliery Control Order and, therefore, there was nothing to preclude the Coal Controller from giving directions under clause 8 in relation to coal dealt with under the said Scheme and such directions when given would take effect notwithstanding any contract to the contrary entered by the colliery owners. The fact that Steam Coal of Sirka Colliery was not offiered for sale by CCL in the advertisement published in September 1992 is of no consequence in so far as the competence of the Coal Controller to give directions regarding supply of that coal instead of Steam Coal from Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries is concerned. Steam Coal at Sirka Colliery was not outside the ambit of the Colliery Control Order and the Coal Controller, in exercise of his powers under clause 8, could give directions in respect of that coal. The power to give such directions is not fettered by the contract between CCL and the petitioners providing for supply of Steam Coal from Urimari and Jarangdih Collieries. (Para 17)

       The power to issue directions under clause 8 has been conferred with a view to enable the Central Government/Coal Controller to effectively regulate the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in coal. There may arise situations where immediate action may be called for. It cannot, therefore, be held that the said power can only be exercised after giving prior notice to the colliery owner or other persons affected by such directions. (Para 18)

       Consequently held : Although the language used in the said letter is in the nature of an advice, but in substance it is a direction for giving effect to transfer of allotments. In view of clause 17 of the Colliery Control Order such a direction was binding on CCL. A writ of mandamus could, therefore, be issued to implement the said direction. (Para 20)