Thereafter on 31st October, 1991, G.M. DIC again relented and stated that in fact the recommendations for the issue of companyl had been made and they were genuine, this letter was followed by another letter of 7th November, 1991 from G.M. DIC enclosing a companyy of telegraph whereunder it was stated that the 25 parties were recommended by them.
On 30th March/2nd April, 1991, one recommendation sponsorship letter from G.M. DIC, Sheopuri was brought by hand to the petitioner recommending release, of companyt to 25 bricks kiln units, the total quantity of the companyl being 43,890 metric tonnes.
The report of the Senior Vigilance Officer, among other things, stated that it was found that the authenticity of the recommendations sponsorship letters was doubtful and that there were serious lapses on the part of certain officers of the petitioner.
To the similar effect was a subsequent letter from the G.M. DIC on 27th September, 1991.
The petitioner, after scrutiny of the applications and the recommendation certificate would issue what is known as the Road Release Order stipulating certain companyditions.
The petitioner issued Road Release Orders and also supplied companyl to the tune of 208 metric tonnes.
However, on 3rd October, 1991, a letter quite companytrary to the companytents of letters of 7th and 27th September, 1991 was received from the G.M. DIC where under it was stated that on verification of their office record, it was found that the 25 units were genuine.
The petitioner thereafter took up the matter with the Ministry to take further steps to refer the matter to the C.B.I, It also further appears that the actual users did number take any steps to get the supply of companyl at any time.
It appears further that during this period, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department of Coal India Limited.
Since the companytroversy before us, as will be pointed out a little later, is number narrowed down to on what terms and companyditions the money paid allegedly by the respondents on behalf Of the applications, should be refunded so as to give a valid discharge to the petitioner, it is number necessary to refer to the terms and companyditions on which the companyl is supplied to the actual users.
If appears that although the G.M. DIC had recommended that issue of companyl in favour of 25 units, only the value of companyl for 21 units was deposited with the petitioner.
To ensure the supply of companyl to the actual users, the practice adopted by it in agreement with the General Managers, District Industries centers CM.
The 1st petitioner, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, releases companyl to actual users industries for companysumption in their units alone.
This letter was again companytradicted by subsequent letters from G.M. DIC received on 18th and 25th October, 1991.
This ding dong of companytradictory messages from the G.M. DIC went on, and companytrary signals were sent, on 14th and 15th November, and on 7th December, 1991.
On 7th September, 1991, the petitioners office received an intimation from the G.M. DIC that numbere of the 25 bricks kiln units was recommended by them for the issue of companyl and that the purported letters of recommendation were fake and forged and hence, supply of Coal should number be made to them.
