Patna High Court
M/S Trishul Industries vs The State Of Bihar on 5 October, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9195 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Trishul Industries through its proprietor Sunil Kumar Singh, Male, aged
about 48 years, S/o Devendra Narayan Singh, having its registered office at
Dhamni Gola, Nabinagar Road, P.S. Barun, District Aurangabad, Bihar-
824112 and resident of Rajputan Mohalla, Ward No. 33, Dehri on Sone,
Rohtas, Bihar-821307.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
3. Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited through its Managing Director
having registered office at Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan (New Secretariat),
Bailey Road, Patna-800015.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation Ltd. Bihar,
Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan (New Secretariat), Bailey Road, Patna-
800015.
5. The Deputy General Manager, Gaya Cluster, Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority, Gaya.
6. The Area In Charge, Industrial Area, Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9197 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Baba Vishwanath Industries though its Authorized Signatory Rakesh
Kumar, Male, Aged about 23 years, S/o Praween Singh, having its registered
office at Village- Bhopatpur, P.o. - Siris, P.s - Barun, District- Aurangabad,
Bihar - 824112 and resident of Village - Devkund, P.O. - Rampurchay, P.S. -
Devkund, District- Aurangabad, Bihar, 824120.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
3. Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited through its Managing Director
having registered office at Room No. 164, Vikash Bhawan (New
Secretariat), Bailey Road, Patna- 800015.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9195 of 2024 dt.05-10-2024
2/5
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar State Mining Corporation Ltd. Bihar,
Room No. 164, Vikash Bhawan (New Secretariat), Bailey Road, Patna-
800015.
5. The Deputy General Manager, Gaya Cluster, Bihar Industrial Area
Develoment Authority, Gaya.
6. The Area-In-Charge, Industrial Area, Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9195 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate
Mr. Aryan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC 4
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, P.P.
Ms. Kalpana, Advocate
For the BIADA : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9197 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Puneet Siddhartha, Advocate
Mr. Aryan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Zeeshan Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC 4
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, P.P.
For the BIADA : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-10-2024
The impugned orders forfeited the security deposit
and blacklisted the petitioners for three years on the ground of
violation of the terms of contract. The contract itself was for
supply of coal, which identical matter was considered by us in
CWJC No. 1114 of 2024 and analogous case (M/s Bhagwati
Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9195 of 2024 dt.05-10-2024
which we looked into the agreement and found that there is a
specification of an Annual Contracted Quantity (ACQ) and a
Monthly Scheduled Quantity (MSQ), the latter of which is 1/12th
of ACQ. The question agitated was whether the agreement
stipulated the actual utilisation equivalent to the MSQ in each of
the months in a year; especially as to whether there was a
prohibition in exceeding the MSQ.
2. On facts, it is to be noticed that the supply of coal
was not regular and the contention of the petitioners was also
that in many months, there was no supply and they had to
lockdown their manufacturing unit for want of coal. In certain
months, the deficiency in supply of the either months were
made up; in which months the units functioned overtime for
utilisation of the coal supplied. The restriction in the agreement
was also that there should not be any shortage in use of the
100% of the ACQ and there was no restriction to the use of
MSQ in a month.
3. We held so in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the
aforementioned judgment:-
9. The specific contention of the purchaser/
petitioners is that that the petitioners' Unit had to
work overtime during the months in which the
supply was made and remained idle when there was
no supply of coal. Considering the fact that the
requirement was to supply a specified quantity of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9195 of 2024 dt.05-10-2024
coal annually and the rigor of compensation falling
on the purchaser, as specified in the agreement only
on under-utilization of 100 per cent of the ACQ in a
whole year; we cannot find the purchaser to be at
fault for using coal as and when it was supplied,
which resulted in the monthly utilization exceeding
the monthly scheduled quantity.
10. Reading the agreement as a whole, we
can only understand that the contract was to supply
specified quantity annually. There was also
stipulation of a monthly scheduled quantity, the
non-supply of which would not prejudice the
Corporation since such short supply would always
depend on the supply of coal from the Coal
Companies. The purchasers also could not have
raised a grievance against the non-supply or short
supply in any month coming within an year. The
penalty of compensation also is confined to short-
lifting of coal as per the ACQ and not as per the
MSQ. The revision of the ACQ to be supplied to
each purchaser would also depend upon the
utilization of the purchaser in the preceding year
and not of every month. We also have to look at
Schedule-1 of the agreement which specifies the
ACQ, the mode of transport; being by road and
also indicates that the supply will be as per the
availability.
4. In the present cases also, the ground stated for
blacklisting and for forfeiture of security amount was similar to
that indicated hereinabove.
5. In such circumstances, following the aforesaid
judgment, we set aside the order of blacklisting. We also make it
clear that unless the agreement has expired by reason of efflux
of time, it has to continue until rescinded by either party as per
the terms of the agreement.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9195 of 2024 dt.05-10-2024
6. The writ petitions stand allowed.
7. Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand closed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 05.10.2024
Transmission Date
