S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J.

1. In all the cases, as common point of law involved, and common orders, dated 23rd July, 2000 and 26th July, 2000 are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The brief fact of the cases, as admitted, shows that the petitioners are manufacturer of special smokeless fuel and bye-products for which they use coal as its raw material. They are registered with District Industries Centre, Hazari-bagh as small scale industries and have been granted linkage for supply of certain quantity of coal, per month by Coal India Limited (CIL) on the recommendation of Linkage Committee.

3. The petitioners were supplied coal by Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) till July 2000. Since August 2000, supply of coal in favour of petitioners having suspended by impugned wireless message dated lst/2nd August, 2000, they have challenged the same.

4. It appears that certain raid was conducted by S.P., Hazaribagh in June 2000, whereinafter, FIRs were lodged against the petitioners and some report was submitted by the S.P., Hazaribagh. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh giving reference of the FIRs lodged against the petitioners and report of S.P., requested respondent-General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh to cancel their registration. Apart from petitioners, name of ten other industries/factories were also shown.

The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh, in his turn, wrote and issued impugned letter on 26th July, 2000 and asked the General Manager, Sales & Marketing Division, CCL, Ranchi to stop supply of coal to petitioners and ten others, giving reference of letter, dated 23rd July, 2000 and the FIRs as were lodged.

The Sales Manager, CCL, in his turn, issued wireless message on lst/2nd August, 2000 directing its officials to suspend the despatches of coal to petitioners and ten others.

5. The petitioners mainly alleged non-application of mind on the part of the Deputy Sales Manager, CCL, Ranchi. They have also challenged and raised question of jurisdiction of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh in directing the CCL to suspend supply of coal. Reliance was placed on one or other unreported decisions of High Courts, which will be discussed at appropriate stage.

6. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for CCL and CIL submitted that the wireless message was issued on the request of General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh. Similar plea taken by such respondents in their counter-affidavits. It is specifically stated that the coal is released for the subsequent month on submission and receipt of monthly return of preceding month wherein the parties give details of coal consumption, production, sale of product and closing stock as in the end of the month. No allegation levelled by CCL authorities against any one or other petitioner.

7. According to the counsel for the State, there are allegations against all the petitioners. On confidential information. petitioners units were raided and huge quantity of unexplained coal was found lying with the units premises. They were seized in presence of independent witnesses and criminal cases were lodged under Sections 414 and 120B, IPC; Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of Indian Forest Act. On inspection of Unit(s), many of them were found closed and it came in the light that the unit(s) premises were used for dumping coal brought from closed Mines in collusion with others. They are indulged in clandestine coal business after criminal conspiracy.

Learned GP II requested the Court not to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of public interest involved. However, aforesaid plea cannot be accepted, the writ petition being not a public interest litigation and State itself being party and stated to have taken appropriate step against individuals by lodging one or other FIR.

8. The main question to be determined as to whether General M