-1 of 5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4889 of 2015 Sushil & Company, through its Proprietor Sushil Kumar Srivastava, Son of Late Bal Krishna Prasad, resident of Balkrishna Bhawan at Manohartand, P.O. and Police Station – Sindri, District – Dhanbad. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its Office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. 2. The General Manager (CMC, UG & Transportation), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & & P.S. - Dhanbad. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate --------- 10/Dated: 21.01.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) 1) The petitioner was a contractor engaged for transporting coal by the 1st Respondent. 2) Petitioner was issued a work order on 09.06.2012 for transportation of raw coal from Gaslitand Colliery to Moonidih Coal Washery by road under a schedule of rates subscribed to the work order (Annexure-3). 3) An F.I.R. was registered by the Govindpur Police Station bearing No. 276 of 2012 on 01.07.2012 under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. alleging that three trucks of the petitioner bearing certain registration numbers were involved in theft of coal and had been seized from Tundi Road inside Aditya Enterprises, Hard Coke Trader, Dhanbad (Annexure-4). -2 of 5- 4) Thereupon, the respondents passed order on 03.07.2012 suspending the work order of transportation of coal dt. 09.06.2012 issued to the petitioner. They also issued a letter on 17.07.2012 suspending the registration of the petitioner as a registered transporter until further orders and then passed an order on 26.07.2012 blacklisting the petitioner and cancelling his registrations dt. 28.08.2010 and 22.06.2012. 5) Petitioner then filed W.P. (C) No.5880 of 2012 in this Court assailing the order dt. 26.07.2012 on the ground that such blacklisting order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and the said order caused a serious prejudice to him. 6) The said writ petition came to be allowed on 02.09.2014 and the matter was remitted to the respondents to reconsider after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7) Thereafter, petitioner again made a representation on 15.09.2014 along with a reminder on 07.10.2014. He also gave a letter on 08.10.2014 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st Respondent. 8) The impugned order was passed on 19.01.2015 by the respondents rejecting the petitioner’s objection to the blacklisting order. It is not in dispute that the said order passed by the respondents does not limit the period of blacklisting to a particular period. It is just like a life sentence on a businessman. This itself is prima facie arbitrary and unreasonable. -3 of 5- 9) Secondly, in the representation dt. 15.09.2014 given by the petitioner to the Chief General Manager of the respondent, he has raised the following contentions: “That the falsity of the prosecution case in Govindpur P.S .Case No. 276/2012 is evident in the light of following facts: (i) The Police has till date not submitted the charge sheet against me. (ii) The Coal seized by the police has not been sent for testing to verify and match its quality with Coal raised at Gazlitanr Colliery of BCCL. (iii) The Coal seized by the police is of much inferior quality than the coal of Gazlitanr Colliery. (iv) The owner of the Coal seized by the police has got valid and bonafide documents regarding the ownerships and transportation like road permit of the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Retail Invoice of Coal transaction (Sale and Purchase), weighment slip from Government approved weigh bridge, etc. (v) That as a matter of fact the Coal seized by the police does not belong to BCCL and although authentic documents were shown to the police at the time of checking but the police has maliciously not referred to them by the lodging the F.I.R., wherein date and time of occurrence has also been manipulated to suit their requirement. (vi) That the police at the time of lodging the F.I.R. has seized BCCL Challan, weighment sip at the leading point and Weighment slip at the unloading point and the IN-OUT Register of the CISF which are sufficient proof that the concerned vehicles were duly checked, -4 of 5- weighed, loaded and dispatched from Gazlitand Colliery of the BCCL and the consignment of the coal was duly delivered at the unloading point of Moonidih Coal Washery, Dhanbad. It is also evident that the aforesaid documents were prepared by the officers of the BCCL (Loading Supervisor) as well as Central Industrial Security Forces deployed at the relevant points for checking pilferage of coal. (vii) In the entire story of Police relating to Govindpur P.S. Case No. 276/2012, they have not named any official of C.I.S.F. as an accused. The nature of allegations leveled by the police and the documentary evidences collected by them completely falsify the occurrence in absence of any involvement by the C.I.S.F. (viii) That due to the burden of timely repayment of the loan of vehicles to the private financers, I had to engage them in the service of private entrepreneurs after the working hours of the BCCL. Accordingly, on that fateful day my vehicles after carrying the coal of BCCL under the concerned work order and unloading the same at its destination at Moonidih Coal Washery, were engaged by Maa Kali Poda Udyog at Dugdha Bokaro and Aditya Enterprises Tundi Road Govindpur, Dhanbad for transportation of Coal purchased by Aditya Enterprises from Maa Kali Poda Udyog. (ix) The Coal seized by the police belongs to Maa Kali Poda Udyog who had sold it to Aditya Enterprises at Govindpur. The relevant documents have already been enclosed with the representation. -5 of 5- (x) Last but not the least, there is no complain of theft of Coal either by the Officers of BCCL or C.I.S.F. and neither any claim has been put forth by the BCCL for reclaiming the Coal seized by the Police.” 10) A perusal of the impugned order dt. 19.01.2015 passed by the respondents shows that it does not advert to any of these points raised by the petitioner and simply proceeds on the contents of the F.I.R. and records a finding that the petitioner’s conduct was not only suspicious, but was also proved by circumstantial evidence. 11) Admittedly, no independent enquiry into the alleged theft of coal was done by the BCCL and it has also not considered the aspects pointed out by the petitioner in his representation dt. 15.09.2014. 12) In our opinion, the impugned order is not only perverse, but suffers from the infirmity of being based on no evidence, because an allegation in an F.I.R. cannot be treated as proof of the commission of the criminal act mentioned therein, particularly, when there is a presumption in Indian Law of innocence. 13) Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dt. 19.01.2015 is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also perverse and based on no evidence. 14) It is, therefore, set aside with cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be paid by the Respondent No.1 to the petitioner within four weeks from today. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R. Manoj/ Pramanik/Db.2