S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The writ petition has been preferred by petitioner. M/s. Maya Fuel Pvt. Ltd. for an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately allocate and supply 2139 M.T. coal to the petitioner from October, 2001 onwards as per its coal linkage contained in letter No. CIL/CAA/48912/ENHANCEMENT/23-27 dated 21st September, 1998 issued by the office of M/s. Coal India Limited (CIL for short) and balance quantity of coal from March, 2000 to September, 2001 in view of the fact that similarly situated persons are being allocated and supplied such coal pursuant to their coal linkage.

2. The Respondent, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL for short) have not denied the petitioners claim for supply of coal, but opposed the quantity of supply as prayed for. According to it, the linked consumers are entitled to lift coal as per Maxim Permissible Quantity (MPQ for short) as introduced by subsidiary companies of M/s. CIL.

3. The stand of CIL is similar. According to it, the policy of sale and distribution of coal to non-core sector was deliberated in great details in the 5th CMDs meet, held on 2nd of June, 2001 which was approved. It was decided that if applications received for more than available quantity of coal, certain norms like MPQ or pro-rata may have to be applied by the coal companies.

4. The main question raised for determination is :

(a) whether a coal company is bound to supply coal to a non-core linked consumer as per quantity mentioned in the linkage?

and

(b) Whether a coal company has jurisdiction to redetermine the quantum of supply of coal as the Maxim Permis- sible Quota (MPQ) in respect to a non-core linked consumer or not.

5. The case of the petitioner is that it was granted a linkage by M/s. CIL to lift coal from linked coal company. The quantum of supply of coal was enhanced on revision of linkage vide letter dated 21st September, 1998 and the linkage quantity was revised and enhanced by M/s. CIL to 2139 (Two thousand one hundred thirty nine) M.T. per month. The petitioner was allowed to lift coal as per linkage from September, 1998 to February, 2000 i.e. 2139 M.T. per month without any interruption. From March, 2000, less quantity of coal than the quantity mentioned in linkage was supplied. For example, from March, 2000 to January, 2001, respondents supplied 335 M.T. and from July, 2001 to September, 2001 supplied 681 M.T. coal only.

Further case of petitioner is that in spite of repeated representation and legal notice dated 2nd May, 2001 the respondents did not resume supply of full quantity of coal as per linkage dated 21st September, 1998. On the other hand, eight companies named at para 15 have been allocated and supplied full quantity of coal as per their linkage without any hindrance for the period from May to August, 2001.

6. The case of the respondent, M/s. BCCL is that the system of MPQ has been introduced in all subsidiary companies and the linkage quota of consumers has been refixed on the basis of best booking made by them during any of the three calendar years i.e, 1998, 1999 and 2000. After arriving at MPQ quantity, the respondents are releasing coal uniformally based upon such figure subject to availability of coal.

Further, according to M/s. BCCL, the availability of coal for non-core sector consumers is considerably low inasmuch as against the linked demand of 47 millions tonnes annually. Coal available is around 4-5 million tonnes annually for non-core sector consumers after meeting the demand of core sector consumers. In this background, the subsidiary companies were compelled to release coal on the basis of MPQ pro-rata basis.

7. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, counsel of M/s. CIL placed reliance on enclosure attached to the counter-affidavit of M/s. CIL.

By letter No. CIL : XI(D): 04008 : 1845/ 2001 dated 15th June, 2001, the Company Secretary of M/s. CIL forwarded a copy of minutes of 196th meeting of the Board of Directors of M/s. CIL held on 6th Jun