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

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, 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 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 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 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 ompanies so as to enable them to challenge the impugned finding under order 41 Rule 22. We also 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 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 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.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 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 ompanies so as to enable them to challenge the impugned finding under order 41 Rule 22. We also 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.Keeping in view the stand taken by the CCL and the manner in which they contested the cases 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