E-auction scheme declared invalid; pending challengers and independent petitioners get relief, repayment with 9% interest ordered

SC held the e-auction scheme invalid and affirmed that petitioners with pending writs challenging the same scheme are entitled to relief flowing from that declaration. Non-parties to earlier proceedings who independently challenged the scheme in pending petitions can claim the benefit of the decision. A defence of unjust enrichment raised for the first time on appeal was disallowed. The Court upheld HC directions for verification of payments, repayment of excess amounts within two months and imposed 9% p.a. interest for delayed compliance. The appellate challenge to the HC's remedial orders was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a writ petitioner who challenged the validity of an e-auction scheme before a High Court and obtained a final judgment in their pending petition is entitled to relief flowing from this Court's earlier decision invalidating the same e-auction scheme in other consolidated matters.

2. Whether parties who were not parties to the proceedings before this Court when interim and final orders were passed can claim the benefit of those orders and reliefs declared in the consolidated decision invalidating the e-auction scheme.

3. Whether the defence of unjust enrichment can be raised for the first time on appeal or at argument to deny refund of amounts collected pursuant to an invalidated statutory or administrative scheme.

4. What are the consequences, including quantification and payment terms, when actions taken pursuant to an invalidated scheme result in excess collections.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Entitlement to relief in a pending writ petition following this Court's prior decision invalidating the e-auction scheme

Legal framework: Judicial review of administrative schemes under Article 14; principle that an invalid legislative or administrative scheme renders acts done pursuant thereto void or illegal to the extent they depend on the invalid scheme.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on its prior consolidated decision that declared the e-auction scheme invalid as violative of Article 14; that decision set the legal standard for actions taken under the scheme.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that where a petitioner has challenged the same scheme in a pending writ and the High Court disposes of that petition following this Court's prior declaration of invalidity, the petitioner is entitled to the relief flowing from the quashing of the scheme. The Court reasoned that quashing the scheme renders actions taken pursuant to it illegal and null and void, and consequently those affected are entitled to restitution for amounts collected in excess of the notified price.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A decision invalidating an administrative scheme applies to cases pending in other courts raising the same core issues, and actions taken pursuant to the invalidated scheme must be treated as void, entitling affected persons to restitution.

Conclusion: The High Court correctly applied the prior declaration of invalidity and directed refund of excess amounts by coal companies; petitioners with pending writs challenging the scheme are entitled to relief consistent with this Court's ratio.

Issue 2 - Applicability of prior orders to non-parties

Legal framework: Principles regarding the binding effect of judicial pronouncements and the scope of relief following judicial invalidation of a scheme; notice and opportunity to be heard relevant to adjudicative fairness.

Precedent treatment: The Court treated the consolidated decision as laying down the legal position applicable to all similar pending matters and not confined to parties before this Court alone where core issues are common.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the argument that only parties before this Court could claim benefits of its interim and final orders. It held that when a scheme is declared invalid, the consequence applies to actions taken under the scheme generally, at least insofar as the issues are common, and those who had pending petitions challenging the scheme were entitled to relief. The Court observed that the present petition had independently challenged the scheme and obtained final disposal, not merely interim relief.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A judicial declaration that an administrative scheme is invalid operates beyond the immediate party list to affect identical legal issues in pending proceedings; those proceedings must be adjudicated in light of that declaration.

Conclusion: Non-party status at the time of earlier hearings does not preclude entitlement to relief where the same scheme has been declared invalid and the petitioner independently pursued and obtained final determination in their pending petition.

Issue 3 - Late invocation of unjust enrichment defence

Legal framework: Principles of pleading and fair notice require that defences be raised in pleadings and tried before they can be relied upon; unjust enrichment as an equitable defence to restitution claims.

Precedent treatment: Court required that a plea of unjust enrichment be pleaded and considered at trial; a party cannot raise a new defence for the first time at argument or on appeal without prior notice to the other side.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reviewed the record and found no pleading or consideration of unjust enrichment before the Single Judge, and no properly canvassed ground in the memoranda of appeal. It declined to entertain the defence first raised orally on appeal because the respondents lacked notice and no documentary support was furnished. The Court emphasized that where payments were collected in violation of law, restitution follows and bald, unpleaded allegations cannot defeat that consequence, particularly when the appellant had refunded excess amounts in other cases without asserting unjust enrichment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A plea of unjust enrichment must be raised in pleadings and tested in the proceedings below before it can be entertained on appeal; failure to plead or prove it precludes its consideration to deny restitution for amounts collected under an invalid scheme.

Conclusion: The unjust enrichment defence, not pleaded or adjudicated below, could not be entertained on appeal and did not defeat the respondents' entitlement to refund of excess amounts.

Issue 4 - Consequences and modalities of refund following quashing of the scheme

Legal framework: Restitutionary relief where administrative action is declared void; courts may direct accounting, verification of payments, and timeline for refunds, with interest for delayed payment.

Precedent treatment: The Court applied established remedial principles, including verification of accounts and directions for payment with interest where appropriate, consistent with prior orders in related matters.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court affirmed the High Court's directions that documents evidencing payments be furnished and verified, accounts be settled in accordance with the settled procedure, and amounts determined be paid within a prescribed timeframe. The Court directed payment in accordance with the settled accounts within two months; failure to comply would attract interest at 9% per annum. The Court noted prior compliance by coal companies in refunding other parties and found no reason to alter the remedial scheme ordered below.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where amounts have been collected in excess pursuant to an invalidated scheme, affected parties are entitled to repayment based on verified accounts; courts may prescribe timelines and interest for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The accounts shall be implemented and amounts paid in accordance with law within two months; interest at 9% per annum will accrue on delayed payments. The appellate challenge to the High Court's remedial directions was dismissed.

---