S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC. Vs CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.
Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-003399-003400 / 2015
Diary number: 8263 / 2013
Advocates: DEVASHISH BHARUKA Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
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