S.J. Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Etc.

Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3399-3400 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.12925-12926/2013)

S.J. Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Central Coalfields Ltd. Etc. Respondent(s)

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 3419 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13286/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14148/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14430/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3403 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14576/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3404 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15985/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3405 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15986/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3406 of 2015

1

Page 2

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15987/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3407 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15989/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15990/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3409 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15991/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3410 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15992/2013)

Civil Appeal No. 3411 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15993/2013)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the common

judgment and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. Nos.

1574, 1581, 1504, 1571, 1597 and 1591 of 2012

and judgment/order dated 18.01.2013 in L.P.A. No.

85 of 2013 whereby the High Court allowed the

appeals filed by the Central Coalfields Ltd.

2

Page 3

(hereinafter referred to as “the CCL”) and while

setting aside the judgment and order of the Single

Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the S.J.

Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. Etc.Etc.(hereinafter

referred to as “the Companies”).

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in

these appeals, it is necessary to state the

background of the facts, which led to filing of the

writ petitions by the Companies, which have given

rise to these appeals.

4. These Companies are private limited

companies registered under the Companies Act,

1956. They are engaged in the business of sale

and purchase of various grades of Coal. The CCL is

a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of

India engaged in the business of producing various

grades of Coal. The CCL sells coal to several bulk

coal consumers including the present Companies,

who are linked consumer of the Coal. The Coal

3

Page 4

being an essential commodity, its prices and mode

of disposal are governed by the

Acts/Regulations/Control Orders and the Policies

made by the Central Government/Coal Companies

from time to time.

5. With a view to further streamline the sale and

distribution of the Coal to its consumers all over

the Country, the Union of India enacted a Scheme

in the year 2004-2005 for sale of Coal by

electronic auction (e-auction). The Scheme inter

alia provided the manner and the mode relating to

sale, distribution and pricing of various grades of

coal. The Coal India Ltd and its several subsidiary

companies including the CCL adopted the Scheme

for its implementation.

6. The legality and validity of the Scheme was

challenged by filing writ petitions in various High

Courts by the traders, and several companies

dealing with coal. So far as the present Companies

4

Page 5

were concerned, they filed writ petitions before

the Jharkhand High Court. During the pendency of

the writ petitions, different High Courts passed

interim orders directing the writ petitioners to

furnish indemnity bonds/Bank Guarantees for the

amount of difference between the notified price

and e-auction weighted average price of the Coal

fixed in the Scheme.

7. Some High Courts decided the writ petitions

finally on merits and while allowing the writ

petitions declared the Scheme as ultra vires

whereas some High Courts dismissed the writ

petitions and upheld the Scheme as being legal

and proper. In some High Courts, the writ petitions

remained pending. The appeals were filed in this

Court arising out of the disposed of matters by

both parties. This Court then passed an order

directing transfer of all pending writ petitions in

various High Courts to this Court and tagged them

5

Page 6

with a bunch of the writ petitions/appeals pending

in this Court and made Ashoka Smokeless Coal

Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India &

Ors. as the main matter for disposal.

8. Accordingly, Ashoka Smokeless Coal

India (P) Ltd. was taken up for consideration

along with other connected matters to decide the

main question as to whether e-auction Scheme

framed by the Union of India was legal or not. In

other words, the question was which view of the

High Court was correct - the one that held the

Scheme as legal or the other that held the Scheme

as bad in law?

9. This Court passed one common interim order

on 12.12.2005 in Ashoka Smokeless Coal

Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India

& Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 228 by modifying several

interim orders, directed the writ petitioners to go

on paying the price in addition to the notified price

6

Page 7

of the coal 33-1/3% of the enhanced price each

time they claimed supply of coal and to furnish

security for the balance 66-2/3% of the enhanced

price of the Coal fixed in the Scheme.

10. This Court by its final decision rendered in

Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries (P) Ltd. &

Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 01.12.2006,

(2007) 2 SCC 640 allowed the writ petitions and

held that the e- auction Scheme was violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India and,

therefore, ultra vires to the Constitution. The

entire e-auction Scheme was accordingly quashed.

In the light of this decision, the judgments of the

High Courts which had upheld the Scheme were

set aside whereas those which had declared the

Scheme as ultra vires were upheld. As a result,

several writ petitions pending in various High

Courts were disposed of in the light of this

decision. Thereafter by order dated 30.10.2007 in

7

Page 8

Transfer Petitions/Contempt Petitions, this Court

directed refund of excess amount to the writ

petitioners for which the sureties/Bank Guarantees

had been furnished. So far as the present

companies were concerned, their claim in the writ

petitions was for the months of April, July and

October, 2005.

11. The decision rendered in Ashoka

Smokeless Coal India Ltd. (supra) gave rise to

filing of several writ petitions by similarly situated

coal consumers in different High Courts such as

Patna, Calcutta, Jharkhand etc. seeking

mandamus against the Coal Companies to refund

the excess amount with interest which was

realized by the coal companies pursuant to the

Scheme from the writ petitioners.

12. The Single Judge of the Patna High Court by

order dated 01.07.2009 passed in Bhagwati

Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Central

8

Page 9

Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. (CWJC 7753/2008)

allowed the writ petition and directed the Central

Coalfields Ltd. to refund the entire amount which

they had collected from the writ petitioners in

excess of the notified price of the coal pursuant to

the Scheme along with 12% interest.

13. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the CCL filed

L.P.A. No. 1094 of 2009. By order dated

17.02.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the appeal but reduced the rate of

interest payable on excess refund amount from

12% to 6%. Dissatisfied with the said order, the

Central Coalfields Ltd. filed Special Leave Petition

(c) No. 17406/2010 before this Court. By order

dated 19.07.2010, this Court dismissed the special

leave petition in limine and confirmed the order

passed by the Division Bench.

14. It may be pertinent to mention here that

similar writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High

9

Page 10

Court by the coal trader (Tetulia Coke Plant (P)

Ltd.) seeking refund of excess amount paid by

them pursuant to the Scheme to Eastern Coalfields

Ltd. with interest. The Division Bench of the said

High Court by order dated 04.10.2010 allowed the

writ petition and issued a mandamus directing the

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to refund the entire amount

which they had collected in excess from the writ

petitioner pursuant to the Scheme. Felt aggrieved,

the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. filed Special Leave

Petition before this Court. By reasoned order dated

10.08.2011 in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs.

Tetulia Coke Plant Private Ltd. & Ors. (2011)

14 SCC 624, this Court dismissed the appeal and

affirmed the order of the Calcutta High Court.

15. It is with these background facts in relation to

the legality of the e-auction Scheme which finally

terminated in writ petitioners’ (coal

consumer/trader/supplier) favour on 1.12.2006

1

Page 11

when this Court struck down the e-auction Scheme

in the Case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India

(Supra) and on 19.07.2010 when this Court

dismissed the SLP filed by Central Coalfields Ltd.

and confirmed the order of the Patna High Court

which had directed refund of excess amount

recovered by the Coal Companies from the writ

petitioners with interests at the rate of 6% which

had become payable to writ petitioners

consequent upon the scheme – being declared bad

in law in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (Supra)

and lastly again on 10.08.2011 in Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Tetulia Coke Plant Private

Ltd. & Ors.(supra) when this Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which

arose out of the order passed by the Calcutta High

Court on the similar issue of refund of excess

amount which had become payable consequent

upon declaration of e-auction Scheme as bad in

1

Page 12

law, the present Companies filed writ petitions on

10.08.2010 and 07.09.2010 against the Central

Coalfields Ltd. before the High Court of Patna out

of which these appeals arise and claimed refund of

entire excess amount of the difference paid

between the notified prices of the Coal and the

one fixed pursuant to the e-auction Scheme with

interest .

16. According to the Companies, they were

entitled to get refund of excess amount with

interest from the CCL consequent upon the e-

auction Scheme being declared bad in law by this

Court and further in the light of law laid down in

two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of

Central Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. (supra) because their cases were

identical in nature in all respects with the writ

petitioners of these two cases decided by this

Court. Other traders like the present Companies

1

Page 13

also filed writ petitions claiming same reliefs

against the respective Coalfield companies.

17. The CCL contested the writ petitions

essentially on two grounds. In the first place, it

was contented that the writ petition was liable to

be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on

the part of the writ petitioners because it was filed

to claim refund of excess payment made in April

2005 to October 2005 in the year 2010. In the

second place, it was contended that keeping in

view the principle of undue enrichment operating

against the writ petitioners involving disputed

issues of facts, the writ petitioners were not

entitled to claim refund of any excess amount in

writ jurisdiction.

18. The Single Judge repelled both the

contentions of the CCL and while allowing the writ

petitions issued a mandamus directing the CCL to

refund the entire excess amount paid by the writ

1

Page 14

petitioners to CCL pursuant to e-auction Scheme

to the writ petitioners with interest payable on

such amount at the rate of 6%.

19. Felt aggrieved, the CCL filed LPAs before the

High Court of Patna out of which these appeals

arise. By impugned order, the Division Bench

allowed the appeals and while setting aside the

order of the Single Judge dismissed the writ

petitions filed by the Companies on the grounds

that firstly, the claim of the writ petitioners was

not based on any fundamental or statutory right

but was based on contract and hence it was not

maintainable and secondly, the claim was not

based on any direction issued by this Court or/and

the High Court to refund the amount in question

and lastly the writ petition was barred by

limitation. So far as the contention of the CCL

relating to principle of undue enrichment was

concerned, the same did not find favour to the

1

Page 15

Division Bench and was accordingly decided

against CCL holding that since the writ petitioners’

claim does not involve any adjudication of

disputed facts, therefore, it was capable of being

entertained in the writ petitions.

20. It is apposite to reproduce the finding of the

Division Bench on the aforementioned issues infra.

“We are unable to agree with Mr. Parasharan as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of disputed questions of fact. The writ petitioners have made categorical statements that prior to 12th December 2005 they did purchase coal from the appellants at the rate determined by e-auction i.e. at the rate higher than the notified rate. The writ petitioners have also brought on record the particulars of the sale orders, the date and quantity of supply, the price paid and the amount liable to be refunded. The said specific statements made in the writ petitions are not categorically denied by the appellants. A bare statement that the writ petitions involved disputed questions of fact will not take the petitions out of the jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of specific denial, the contention ought to be rejected and is rejected. We are also not impressed by the argument that the claim of the writ petitioners requires to be rejected on the principles of unjust enrichment. The matter at hand is a purely commercial transaction between the appellant and the writ petitioners. The principle of unjust enrichment has been developed in respect of the statutory dues payable to the Government by way of a tax/a duty/a fee. The

1

Page 16

principle has not yet been extended to the commercial transactions of the Government which are governed by terms and conditions of the contract. We do not propose to expand the horizons. The contention is rejected. ……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..

In our opinion, in any view of the matter, the writ petitioners are not entitled to the relief for,

(i) The claim for refund made by the writ petitioners is not based on a fundamental or a statutory right;

(ii) the refund claimed by the writ petitioners arise from a contract of sale and purchase;

(iii) the claim is not supported by any direction of the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court for refund of such amounts; the question of honouring the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High Court does not arise, and;

(iv) indisputably, the claim has been made after expiry of period of limitation prescribed for bringing a civil action.”

21. Feeling aggrieved, both parties i.e. writ

petitioners (companies) and the Central Coalfields

Ltd. (CCL) have filed these appeals by way of

special leave before this Court.

22. So far as the writ petitioners (companies) are

concerned, they have filed appeals against the

findings, which resulted in dismissal of their writ

1

Page 17

petitions whereas so far as Central Coalfields Ltd

(CCL) is concerned, they have challenged the

finding of undue enrichment, which was decided

by the Division Bench against them.

23. This is how the entire controversy is now

under challenge before this Court in these appeals

at the instance of both the parties to the original

writ petitions.

24. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

25. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Companies(writ petitioners)

while assailing the legality and correctness of the

impugned judgment of the Division Bench urged

five submissions. Firstly, he contended that the

Division Bench erred in allowing the appeals filed

by the CCL thereby erred in dismissing the writ

petitions, which were rightly allowed by the Single

Judge (writ court). According to him, the appeals of

the CCL should have been dismissed by upholding

1

Page 18

the order of the Single Judge.

26. Secondly, learned senior counsel contended

that the Division Bench erred in holding that the

writ petitions filed by the Companies were not

maintainable because the claim for which the writ

petitions were filed was not based on any

statutory or fundamental rights but was based on

the contractual rights of the Companies. According

to learned counsel, the finding on this issue is

entirely untenable because this issue was already

considered and dealt with by this Court in the case

of Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(supra) and was

rejected finding no merit therein. It was, therefore,

his submission that the finding of this Court

rendered in Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(supra) was

binding on the High Court, which unfortunately

was neither noticed much less given effect to

while deciding the issue.

27. Thirdly, learned counsel contended that the

1

Page 19

Division Bench erred in holding that the writ

petitions filed by the Companies were barred by

limitation because they were filed beyond the

period of three years from the date of accrual of

cause of action. According to learned Counsel, this

finding is equally untenable in law for the reason

that firstly this issue was considered, dealt with

and then rejected by this Court in Eastern

Coalfields Case; secondly, the cause of action to

file writ petition for claiming refund of excess

amount arose on 19.07.2010 when the SLP filed

by the Central Coalfields (CCL) was dismissed

(Annexure-14) by this Court in limine thereby

finally settling the controversy relating to claim of

refund of excess amount; thirdly, though law of

limitation did not apply to the writ petitions yet the

Companies filed the writ petitions within one

month (10.08.2010) from the date of dismissal of

SLP by this Court (19.07.2010) in the case of CCL

1

Page 20

and hence the writ petitions should have been

held to have been filed within reasonable time

from the date of accrual of cause of action. In

other words, it should not have been dismissed on

the ground of delay and laches.

28. Fourthly, learned Counsel contended that

once the issues in question at the instance of

similarly situated person were settled by this Court

then every one alike was entitled to get the

benefit of such decision against the State or/and

its instrumentality on the principle of equality

enshrined under Article 14. Since the cases of the

Companies (writ petitioners) were identical to the

case of writ petitioners who were parties to the

case of Central Coalfields Ltd. and Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. wherein all the issues raised by the

CCL were discussed thread bear and eventually

rejected by this Court, the CCL was not entitled to

raise the same pleas again in these appeals to

2

Page 21

persuade this Court to take a contrary view to the

one taken in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra)

case except to accept the verdict of this Court

rendered in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) case

for grant of same benefit to all similarly situated

persons such as the appellants herein.

29. Fifthly, learned counsel contended that the

Division Bench rightly decided the issue of undue

enrichment against the CCL because this Court in

Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(supra) has already

rejected the said plea finding no merit therein. In

other words, the submission was that the finding

of the Division Bench on the issue of undue

enrichment was in conformity with the law laid

down by this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

and hence it should be upheld by this Court by

dismissing the appeals filed by the CCL. In the

alternative, it was also urged that the appeals filed

by the CCL were not maintainable because when

2

Page 22

the entire impugned judgment was in their favour

which resulted in allowing their appeal, then in

such event no appeal would lie against the finding

only.

30. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel

appearing for some of the companies while

pointing out some factual distinguishable features

in his appeals, adopted the aforesaid arguments of

Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel appearing

for other Companies.

31. In contra, learned counsel appearing for the

CCL supported the impugned judgment on the

reasoning and the eventual conclusion reached by

the Division Bench and contended that both

deserves to be upheld. Learned counsel further

urged in support of their appeals that the Division

Bench erred in deciding the issue of undue

enrichment against the CCL. According to learned

counsel, it should have been decided in their

2

Page 23

favour for dismissal of the writ petitions.

32. Having heard the learned Counsel the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find

force in the submissions of learned counsel for the

Companies (writ petitioners) and hence are

inclined to allow the appeals filed by the writ

petitioners (companies).

33. In our considered view, all the issues arising

in these cases including the submissions urged by

the learned counsel for the parties as mentioned

above were already decided by this Court in the

case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and

hence the writ petitions and the appeals arising

therefrom should have been decided by the writ

court and the appellate court (Division Bench) in

the light of the law laid down in the said decision.

34. It is really unfortunate that though the

decision of this Court in the Eastern Coalfields

Ltd.(supra) was holding the field having been

2

Page 24

rendered during the pendency of the writ petition

on 10.08.2011 yet neither the Single Judge who

decided the writ petition on 02.04.2012 and nor

the Division Bench who decided the appeal on

14.12.2012 took note of the decision much less

referred to it in their respective judgments. We

cannot, therefore, countenance the approach of

the two courts below in deciding the issue though

it was of reversal.

35. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that

the law declared by this Court shall be binding on

all Courts within the territory of India. Therefore,

once this Court decided the issue in the case of

Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(supra) on 10.08.2011 by

passing a reasoned order, a fortiori, the ratio

decidendi declared in the said decision was

binding on all the Courts in the country for giving

effect to it while deciding the lis of the same

nature. Both the Courts below were, therefore,

2

Page 25

under legal obligation to have taken note of the

said decision and then should have decided the

writ petition/appeal in conformity with the law laid

down therein. It was more so because controversy

involved in both the cases was similar in nature.

36. As observed supra, both the Courts failed to

do so thereby rendering the impugned decision

bad in law.

37. When we peruse the decision of Eastern

Coalfields Ltd., we find no factual distinction

between the facts of the case in hand and the one

involved in Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.. It is apposite

to quote paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment

in Eastern Coalfields (supra) which will show the

similarity in these two cases :

“9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the legality of the scheme of e- auction was challenged by filing writ petitions in various High Courts by the traders and companies dealing with coal. Some of those petitions were transferred to this Court pursuant to the orders of this Court, the leading case being Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd.(2007) 2 SCC 640 which was taken up for consideration along with connected

2

Page 26

matters and the same were disposed of by this Court and the said decision is now reported in Ashoka Smokeless. By the aforesaid judgment, this Court has upheld the challenge of the writ petitioners to the legality of the scheme of e- auction. The aforesaid prayer of the writ petitioners was accepted and this Court held that the scheme of e-auction was invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it was declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution and this Court quashed the e-auction scheme.

10. It must be indicated herein that the present respondent also filed the writ petition in question in the Calcutta High Court before the aforesaid decision was rendered and in his case also an interim order was passed by the Calcutta High Court. After the disposal of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd., the writ petition filed by the respondent herein which was pending was also considered and the same was allowed following the decision of this Court in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. as by that decision, this Court has declared the entire scheme to be invalid and ultra vires to the Constitution. Therefore, any action taken pursuant to the said scheme is also illegal and null and void. Following the ratio of the said decision this Court directed the coal companies to refund the price of the coal paid in excess of the notified price under the e-auction scheme. Certain guidelines were also laid down as to how such payments are to be made. The said decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court by affirming the conclusions and analysing all the issues that were raised before it.

11. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that whatever is challenged in the present petition is only an interim order. It is not so because the respondents herein also challenged the legality of the e-auction scheme in the writ petition. The High Court has not disposed of only an interim prayer but has disposed of the

2

Page 27

entire writ petition by its judgment and order dated 25-3-2010. Consequently, it must also be held that when the entire scheme is set at naught by this Court, whatever action has been taken following the said e-auction by the Coal Company has also been declared to be illegal and, therefore, the Coal Company has become liable to refund the entire money which was collected in excess of the notified price. That is the consequence of quashing of the scheme and the same came to be reiterated by this Court while contempt petitions were filed and were disposed of. Therefore, it cannot be said that the effect of the decision of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. would be restricted only to those cases which were before this Court and not for all cases which were pending in different High Courts at that stage, at least to the issues which are common in nature.”

Perusal of the aforequoted paragraphs would go to

show that this Court in no uncertain terms held in

Eastern Coalfields case (supra) that benefit of

decision rendered in the Ashoka Smokeless

Coal India (supra) is not confined to those who

were parties to those cases but it would be to all

regardless of the fact whether they were party to

the case or not.(see Para 11 of the extracted

portion above). This Court, therefore, upheld the

relief of refund of excess amount, which was

2

Page 28

granted to the writ petitioner by the High Court of

Calcutta and accordingly dismissed the appeal

filed by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

38. Like wise, this Court while expressly dealing

with the question of undue enrichment raised by

the Eastern Coalfields repelled the said submission

finding no merit therein in paragraph 12 in

following words:

“12. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also submitted before us that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit, if they are otherwise entitled to on the principles of unjust enrichment. We specifically asked the learned Additional Solicitor General during the course of the arguments to show us whether any such plea was taken in the writ petition which was filed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Additional Solicitor General was unable to show that any such defence or plea was taken about unjust enrichment in the pleadings filed before the learned Single Judge. Such an issue was also not argued before the learned Single Judge as no such reference is there in the order of the learned Single Judge. It is, however, stated by the learned Additional Solicitor General that such an issue was raised before the Division Bench. But we could not find the same raised in the pleadings nor was it considered. But a mention is made in the judgment that such a plea was argued. However, on going through

2

Page 29

the records, we find that no such ground has also been taken even in the memorandum of appeal filed in the present appeal. Therefore, without taking a plea of unjust enrichment either in the writ petition or before this Court, we are not inclined to allow him to argue the plea at the time of argument and entertain such a plea, particularly, in view of the fact that the respondents did not have any notice of such a plea taken for the first time at argument stage.”

39. It is, therefore, clear that the express

challenge laid before this Court at the instance of

Eastern Coalfields on the issue of undue

enrichment was repelled. In this view of the

matter, we fail to appreciate as to on what basis,

the another Coal Company alike Eastern Coal

Company can now be allowed to raise the same

plea again in these proceedings only because this

matter arise from another High Court. In other

words, we are of the considered opinion that this

Court having rejected the issue of undue

enrichment in the case of Eastern Coalfields

(supra) while dealing with the similar controversy,

2

Page 30

the same issue is no longer available to any other

Coal Company to raise in similar pending

proceedings. It is more so when no distinguishing

feature in both the cases were brought to our

notice.

40. Coming now to the issue of refund of excess

amount payable to the writ petitioners, we find

that this Court has examined the said issue in para

13 and decided in favour of the writ petitioners in

following words.

“13. In the present case, it is a case of refund of price recovered by the appellant in excess and not of any kind of payment of tax or duty. Besides, the appellant has already refunded such excess amount realised to many other parties without raising any such plea. If anything is done by a party in violation of the law, consequence has to follow and they are bound to return the money to the parties from whom excess amount has been realised. There is also no document placed on record in support of any such plea. Bald allegation of this nature cannot be accepted particularly when no such plea has been raised in this Court.”

41. In the light of aforesaid law laid down, we find

3

Page 31

no justification to deny the benefit of such law to

the present Companies(writ petitioners) on the

ground of parity with the writ petitioner of Central

Coalfields Ltd. and Eastern Coalfields Ltd case.

42. As taken note of supra, in our opinion having

regard to the background facts of this case, the

right to file writ petition to claim refund of excess

amount arose after the issue was decided by this

Court firstly on 19.07.2010 when this Court

dismissed the SLP filed by Central Coalfield Ltd. in

limine and upheld the reasoned order of the Patna

High Court on this very issue. It is not in dispute

that the Companies filed the writ petitions on

10.08.2010 (within one month from the date of the

decision of this Court in Central Coalfields Ltd.

case). Indeed, the Companies could have filed the

writ petitions even subsequent to the decision

rendered in the case of Eastern Coalfield Ltd.

(10.08.2011) because it is in this case, this Court

3

Page 32

rendered a reasoned judgment finally repelling all

the objections of Coal Companies on merits and

upheld the right of the writ petitioners to claim

refund of excess amount which they had paid to

CCL and other coal fields pursuant to the Scheme.

43. We cannot, therefore, concur with the view

taken by the Division Bench when it proceeded to

dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of delay

and laches. The Single Judge, in our view, rightly

entertained the writ petitions on merits and

proceeded to grant relief as claimed by the

companies in the writ petition and the Division

Bench, in our opinion, should have upheld the view

of the Single Judge.

44. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find

that all the five submissions urged by the learned

counsel for the Companies (writ petitioners) found

acceptance to this court in the case of Eastern

Coalfields Ltd., and hence the same deserves to

3

Page 33

be accepted while deciding these appeals by

placing reliance on the law laid down in Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. We, therefore, do not consider

necessary to deal with these submissions again on

their respective merits elaborately by taking note

of various case law cited by learned counsel for

the appellant.

45. Since we have rejected the ground taken by

the Central Coalfields India Ltd. (CCL) in relation to

undue enrichment on merits, and hence we

express no opinion as to whether the appeals filed

by them only against the finding is maintainable or

not. We also find that no prayer was made by

learned counsel for the CCL to treat or convert the

appeals filed by CCL as memorandum of cross

objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, in appeals filed by

companies so as to enable them to challenge the

impugned finding under order 41 Rule 22. We also

3

Page 34

do not wish to examine the question as to whether

cross objection is permissible on behalf of

respondent in an appeal arising out of SLP filed

under Article 136 and leave all these questions

open to be decided in an appropriate case as and

when occasion arises in future.

46. Before parting with the case, we consider it

opposite to state that this case reminds us of the

subtle observations made by Justice M.C. Chagla,

Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in Firm

Kaluram Sitaram Vs. The Dominion of India,

AIR 1954 Bombay 50. The learned Chief Justice in

his distinctive style of writing held as under:

“….we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent judges, as an honest person……….”

47. Keeping in view the stand taken by the CCL

and the manner in which they contested the cases

3

Page 35

at all stages in different High Courts and in this

Court by raising same pleas despite their

adjudication by this Court lead us to draw a

conclusion that untenable pleas were being raised

by CCL just to defeat the legitimate claim of the

citizens determined in their favour by this Court in

earlier litigations and which was known to CCL.

48. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals

filed by the writ petitioners i.e. appeals arising out

of S.L.P.(c) Nos. 12925-12926, 13286, 14148,

14576, 15992 & 15993 of 2013 deserve to be

allowed and are accordingly allowed though on

different reasons which we have given above. As a

consequence, the impugned judgments/orders are

set aside and that of the Single Judge restored.

49. As a consequence, the appeals filed by the

Central Coalfields Ltd. – C.A. arising out of S.L.P.(c)

Nos. 14430, 15985, 15986, 15987, 15989, 15990

and 15991 of 2013 stand dismissed.

3

Page 36

50. The CCL is directed to verify the claim of each

of the writ petitioners and then after giving

adjustment of any amount if already found paid to

the writ petitioners against their claim in question,

refund the balance amount along with interests at

the rate of 6% to the respective writ petitioners

(companies). Let this be done within three

months.

…….….……............................J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

…………..................................J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; April 08, 2015.

3

S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC. Vs CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.

S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC. Vs CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.