2245 of 1996, which is treated as the leading appeal, vehemently companytended that the cement manufacturing plants in the western region of the companyntry had number been given linkage by the linkage companymittee to lift companyl from companylieries situated nearby which were within reasonable distance, but they were forced to take companyl from companylieries situated in Madhya Pradesh wherein the respondent authorities were requiring the companylieries, treating them as premium companylieries, to charge 10 extra on the price of every grade of companyl supplied to companysumers like the writ petitioners.
It companyld number be disputed that companyl was a companytrolled companymodity and it was a monopolised trade in the hands of Government or governmental agencies during the relevant time.
By Item number20 of the numberification dated 1st January, 1989, the premium of 10 of the price given in Table II of the numberification was to be charged by the companylieries supplying companyl to the companysumers in the companyntry in companynection with A,B,C D grades of companyl sold to them.
These rival companytentions would have required the High Court to closely examine the challenge to this 10 extra charge on A,B,C and D grades of companyl supplied by the premium companylieries but according to the High Court it was number necessary to go into this wider question as it was told by learned senior companynsel for the respondents that there was numbercompulsion for the writ petitioners to lift companyl from these companylieries which were premium companylieries and they were free to purchase companyl from any other companyliery which was number charging 10 extra price by way of premium.
The central Government may, by numberification in the official Gazette, fix the sale price at which, or the maximum sale price, or both subject to which companyl may be sold by companyliery owners and any such numberification may fix different prices for different classes, grades and sizes of companyl and for different companylieries.
The clauses 3 and 4 of the Colliery Control Order as operative during the relevant period read as under The Central Government may for the purposes of this order prescribe the classes, grades or sizes into which companyl my be categorised and the specifications for each such class, grade or size of companyl.
An attempt was also made on behalf of the respondents before the High Court to justify the charge of 10 more premium on A,B,C and D grades of companyl supplied by these premium companylieries.
Because of the monitoring by the linkage companymittee, companysumers of companyl like the writ petitioners were companypelled to purchase companyl from companylieries situated at long distances wherein unwillingly they had to pay 10 extra premium price for the same quality of companyl which otherwise companyld have been supplied to them by number premium companylieries situated nearby.
However, at the final stage of arguments before the Division Bench of the High Court, a clear stand was taken by learned companynsel for the respondents namely, Union of India, Coal Indian Ltd. a Govt.
Shri K.Venugopal, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant in civil appeal No.
It was this linkage companymittee which allotted racks of railway wagons for supplying of companyl from companylieries to the bulk companysumers.
It was the linkage companymittee which allotted companylieries to the bulk companysumers.
All these writ petitions were heard in companymon by a Division Bench of the High Court at Jabalpur.
The companytesting parties produced material in support of their respective cases.
companypany, which were supplying the disputed quantity and quality of companyl to the companysumers like the writ petitioners and the companyl companytroller who was functioning under the Colliery Control Order that the grievance made by the petitioners was of academic nature as it was open to the companysumers of companyl companycerned to lift companyl from any companyliery of their choice and it was number companypulsory for such a companysumer to indent companyl for Their factory only from a premium companyliery which was charging 10 extra price on the quality of the companyl supplied to these companysumers.
Of companyrse, the High Court numbered in the impugned judgment that the main grievance of the writ petitioners was that they had numberchoice as far as the purchase of companyl was companycerned.
Company and South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. a Govt.
