Alok Fuels P. Ltd. vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—This application seeks to recall/review the order dated 19.03.2013 whereby LPA No. 2298 of 2011 was disposed of on the statement made by learned counsel for the review applicant/appellant in the following terms:-

Learned counsel for the appellants state that pending this appeal, the Coal India Limited is said to have taken a decision to establish a uniform system for verification and use of coal by the consumers. He states that given an opportunity, the appellants would also represent the Coal India Limited to re-consider its decision against them, in the light of the newly established uniform system statedly circulated on 29.12.2012.

As prayed for, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed for with liberty to the appellants to approach the Coal India Limited in terms of the above-mentioned circular. Suffice it to observe that if the appellants submit any representation, the Coal India Limited shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The above-stated appeal was directed against the order dated 19.08.2011 of the learned Single Judge passed in a writ petition wherein the review-applicant sought the quashing/termination of Fuel Supply Agreement and grant of the consequential benefits.

Learned Single Judge held that "...the documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be not reliable that could annul a decision to stop supplies and hence, I uphold the decision and find it not suitable for any intervention in the writ petition". The writ petition was thus disposed of in the following terms:-

If the petitioner company had been put to any loss by the unlawful termination of supply, it could definitely be quantified in terms of money for the period when the petitioner could not run the unit and quantify the loss that had ensued by such a wrong decision. There could not be a mandamus for assessment of supply without a definite adjudication that the decision taken by the State authorities was wholly arbitrary or faulty. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition and give liberty to the petitioners to work out alternate remedy either through a civil suit or through an arbitral process by letting in evidence both oral and documentary that there had been adequate utilization of the goods supplied under the contract and the termination of contract was not valid. In such an event, if there is still an unexpired period of contract, it shall become possible for obtaining a specific enforcement or quantify the quantum of loss and damages that the petitioner company has been put to by the alleged wrong decision of the respondents.

M/s. Coal India Ltd. thereafter moved a review application (RA No. 30 of 2013) which was dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2014 observing that since the appeal was disposed of on the basis of statement made by appellant''s counsel, M/s. Coal India Ltd. was not bound by the contents of that statement and it could pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the authorized representative of the appellant/review-applicant moved CM No. 3707 of 2013 in person and sought ''modification'' and ''clarification'' of the order dated 19.03.2013. His application too was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2013.

The writ-petitioner/appellant now seeks to review the order dated 19.03.2013 on the ground that the representation submitted by it has been turned down by the respondent-authority, namely, M/s. Coal India Ltd. and the review-applicant is remediless against that order.

Though the review-application deserves dismissal on the ground of delay alone, nonetheless, we have heard learned counsel on merit and are of the view that no case to recall/modify the order dated 19.03.2013 is made out. The appeal was disposed of in such terms as were suggested by the applicant/appellant only. Even if its claim has been turned down by M/s. Coal India Ltd., yet the review-applicant is not remediless as the learned Single Judge has permitted the review-applicant to avail the alternative remedy of civil suit etc. There is thus no merit in this application which is dismissed accordingly. This order, however, shall not preclude the review-applicant to submit any representation before the authorities who may consider the same sympathetically and uninfluenced of their earlier decisions.