Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
Sharma Lime Kiln, Manthal, Udhampur through its Proprietor Sh. N. J. Durani, S/o Sh. B. L. Durani - Petitioners
Vs.
OWP No. 812 OF 2005
Decided On :
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Relevant laws include the principles governing writ petitions and the jurisdiction of the High Court.
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication and adherence to prior judgments.
(C)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, small-scale industrial units, sought restoration of coal supply from Bharat Coking Coal Limited after an abrupt stoppage in 2002 due to a CBI investigation.
(D)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of withholding coal supply and the appropriate interest rate on the withheld amounts. (E)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the withheld amount of Rs.1,48,87,476/-. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to interest based on previous judgments and the need for timely resolution of their claims. (G)
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to pay interest within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. On account of an intervening development in the form of adjudication of an identical writ petition, the disposal of this writ petition is being sought on behalf of the petitioners by laying a motion to said effect by filing IA No. 01/2018 read with CM No. 8456/2021 & CM No. 5801/2023. This Court sees a valid invitational basis for according adjudication to this writ petition following the similar track as cited on behalf of the petitioners through the medium of the aforesaid three applications. However, before coming to end result, a brief reference to the subject matter of the present writ petition and also in relation to the identical disposed of writ petition needs to be set out.
2. The institution of this writ petition came to take place on 14.12.2005 involving fourteen petitioners, all being small-scale industrial concerns, then engaged in manufacturing of chemicals/fertilizers/ metals/briquettes in the then State of Jammu & Kashmir and all registered, as such, with respective District Industries Centre under J&K Industries Department.
3. In relation to the manufacturing activity an essential raw material required by the petitioners’ units used to be steam/slack coal which was procurable only from the respondent No. 2 – Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short “BCCL”), Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. It came to be pleaded in the writ petition that for the period from 1982 to 2002 the petitioners were involved in availing supply of said raw material of steam/slack coal from the respondent No. 2 – BCCL by placing orders against the payments made but an abrupt stoppage of supply of said booked raw material in the year 2002 despite having the supply orders along with payments made led the petitioners herein to filing of writ petition WP No. 3301/2004 before the High Court of Jharkhand in order to seek restoration of supply of the raw material against the orders placed.
5. The purported cause which came to surface related to stoppage of supply of the raw material to the petitioners against the orders placed was that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB Dhanbad was involved in an investigation with respect to the supply of the raw material to the concern/s industrial units in J&K acting upon which District Industries Centre, Jammu in terms of a letter dated 24.06.2022 had urged the respondent No. 2 – BCCL to suspend the supply of steam coal and also not to refund the amount deposited by the buyers concerns as per the advice of the CBI, ACB Dhanbad.
6. As against this communication dated 24.06.2022 of the District Industries Centre, Jammu which had adversely affected the supply of raw material to the petitioners’ concerns when none of the petitioners’ concerns were involved in any act of omission and commission.
7. A communication dated 29.07.2022 by the Joint Director Industries, Jammu was addressed requesting the respondent No. 2 – BCCL for release of raw material against the payments tendered by the petitioners and other similarly situated industrial units of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
8. Through this communication dated 29.07.2022, the Chief General Manager (S&M) of the respondent No. 2 – BCCL was requested to consider the cases for release of raw material as recommended by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Udhampur for which the payments were made prior to July, 2002 for enabling the industrial units to resume the production activity.
9. The petitioners were constrained to put a legal notice to the respondent No. 2 – BCCL in response whereto vide a letter dated 27.02.2004 it was disclosed that since CBI, ACB Dhanbad was investigating the case and, as such, on its advice the refund to the petitioners had been stopped.
10. On the other hand, the Superintendent of Police, ACB Dhanbad, vide his letter No. 5257/2/3(A)/02(D) dated 22.09.2004, apprised the respondent No. 2 – BCCL that it has referred the matter from its file to J&K Govt. for further necessary action, in which context the Govt. of J&K vide a Govt
The court affirmed the entitlement of petitioners to interest on withheld amounts, reducing the rate to 12% per annum, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments.
Parties must comply with court orders regarding coal supply agreements, with confirmed entitlements based on established judicial mandates rather than disputed interpretations.
The court held that the respondent's demand for compensation was unjustified as no loss was incurred due to short lifting of coal. The court restrained the respondent from invoking the bank guarantee....
The respondent-CCL must satisfy itself regarding the authenticity of the end use of coal by calling for/inspecting the documents and by physical verification as per Clause 4.4 of the FSA. The princip....
The principle of constructive res judicata and the doctrine of election were applied by the court to dismiss the writ petitions.
The court found that the petitioner's location did not give it the right to challenge the blacklisting order before the court, and dismissed the writ petition.
A writ petition can be dismissed for lack of maintainability if an arbitration clause exists; however, constitutional violations may warrant judicial review.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
