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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 issuesare 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 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.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 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

Reasoning:
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