Approval by the Ministry of Coal for modification and change in coal distribution policy influenced the court's decision to direct the return of the bank guarantee amount to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J. - The respondent nos. 4 and 5, namely, Eastern Coalfields Limited and the General Manager (Sales and Marketing), Eastern Coalfields Limited have filed the instant application for recalling of the Order dt. 24.02.2022 passed by this Court in WPA No. 9647 of 2013 on the ground that the Order dt. 24.02.2022 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents herein as the writ petitioner has not served any notice to the respondents herein before hearing of the instant writ application.

2. Counsel for the writ petitioner had admitted the fact that no notice was served upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and as such the Order dt. 24.02.2022 passed in WPA 9647 of 2013 is recalled.

CAN 3 of 2022 is allowed.

3. After recalling the Order dt. 24.02.2022, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

4. The petitioners have filed the instant writ application praying for a direction for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,34,46,000/- forfeited by the respondent no. 4 on 20.07.2010. The petitioners further prayed for a direction upon the respondent for execution of Fuel Supply Agreement in respect of 6th, 7th & 8th Kilns of Unit-III of the petitioner's plant without insisting for bank guarantee prior to refund of the forfeited proportionate bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 1,34,46,000/-.

5. The respondent no. 1 has introduced a coal distribution policy to ensure long term coal supply to certain categories of industries for the development of such industries. Under the coal distribution policy, the coal companies under the Central Government required to enter into Fuel Supply Agreement (in sought hereinafter referred as FSA) with such industries.

6. The petitioner Company applied to the Central Government for the Coal Linkage for its Unit No. III, Kiln No. 4, 5, 6 & 7 having the capacity of 2x30,000 and 2x45,000 per annum respectively being the total capacity of 1,50,000 TPA.

7. The Standing Linkage Committee (Long Term) on Sponge Iron Unit in its meeting held on 06.09.2007 conveyed authorization to Coal India Limited/ Singerani Colliery Company Limited to issue Letter of Assurance on normative basis.

8. The name of the petitioner Company was also figured in the list of the units which have been approved for the issuance of Letter of Assurance. The decision of the Standing Committee on Sponge Iron was duly communicated to the petitioner Company as well as the Eastern Coal Fields Limited by the Ministry on 21.01.2008. The Eastern Cold Fields Limited vide their letter dt. 04.04.2008 intimated the petitioner Company to furnish a bank guarantee prior to issuance of Letter of Assurance and accordingly, the petitioner Company furnished bank guarantee of Rs. 2,24,10,000/- in favour of the Coal India Limited. The Eastern Coalfields Limited issued Letter of Assurance dt. 28.08.2008 wherein Eastern Coalfields Limited assured for supply of 1,80,000/- tones of D/E Grade Coal per annum to the Petitioner Company subject to fulfillment of other conditions including achievements of mile stones as stipulated in the Letter of Assurance.

9. The petitioner company duly fulfilled all mile stones/ requirement as stipulated in the Letter of Assurance and requested the Eastern Coalfields Limited to execute Fuel Supply Agreement. Initially the petitioner Company envisaged construction of kiln nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 having capacity of 2x30,000 and 2x45,000 per annum (TPA) respectively being total capacity of 1,50,000 TPA due to technical compulsion. The Petitioner Company vide letter dt. 30.03.2010 intimated to the Eastern Coalfields Limited that the petitioner Company had been issued the Letter of Assurance by the Eastern Coalfields Limited dt. 28.06.2008 for 1,80,000/- tones of D/E Grade Coal per annum for the petitioner's Plant against 4 kilns, out of which two of the capacity was initially proposed to be 30,000 TPA each and for the other 2, the capacity was proposed to be 45,000 TPA each. The petitioner for the technical reasons made modification