TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN For the Parties: Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Anip Sachthey, Adv., Ms. Shagun Matta, Adv JUDGMENT 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. (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 purch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme 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 declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht 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 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 12^th 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 pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hment 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 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-auc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re." 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 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Centr....