IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.284 of 2010 In LPA 1094 of 2009 ====================================================== Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus M/S Bhagwati Coke Industries P .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kr. Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 13 30-11-2011 This review application has been preferred against the order of the Court in L.P.A. No.1094/09 affirming the Bench Decision in C.W.J.C. No.7753/08. The controversy relates to refund of the differential amount between the notified price of coal and the actual E- rated auction price realized from the respondents for the months of April, May and October, 2005. We have heard the parties at length. The grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners for invoking the review jurisdiction were all available to the petitioner not only as a respondent before the Writ Court, but also as appellants before the L.P.A. Court and lastly before the Supreme Court when their Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed in limine. Even if it was an in limine dismissal, nothing Patna High Court C. REV. No.284 of 2010 (1) dt.30-11-2011 2 prevented the petitioners from seeking appropriate clarifications and/or before the Supreme Court of the nature presently sought to be urged. Regardless of all issues, the petitioners did give an undertaking that any amount received by it in excess of what they were legitimately entitled to, dependent on the final adjudication, shall be unconditionally refunded by them with interest. Once it has been held that they were legitimately not entitled to certain amounts received by them, the consequences by refund have necessarily to follow. We are not satisfied that any ground has been made out to interfere in the matter on the restricted grounds of the review jurisdiction. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Letters Patent Court has already reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 6%. The review applications are devoid of merit and hence rejected. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)