The Division Bench's decision on the entitlement of certain petitioners to coal under the Land Losers Scheme, which was accepted by the petitioners and reached finality after dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, could not be upset by a subsequent writ petition seeking identical relief, as it would be hit by the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and comity of court.

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. The appellants were the land losers. Their lands were acquired by the State for the purpose of setting up colliery. Eastern Coalfields Limited was the owner of the colliery. Under the Land Losers Scheme each one of the land losers family was assured compassionate appointment that the Coal Company could not provide. They modified the scheme offering coal at a particular rate and quantity so that they could deal with the same by making profit as and by way of alternative means of livelihood. Initially four writ petitioners filed the writ petition being WP No. 1339(w) of 1999 inter-alia claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Coal Company to forthwith allot and supply adequate quantity of coal to the petitioners under the Land Losers Scheme in respect of 62 acres of land at the rate of 1600 metric ton per acre. On our request, the appellant furnished a copy of the writ petition. Perusal of the same would denote, the petitioners offered 62 acres land to meet the requirement of the colliery. On a combined reading of the petition it appears, those four petitioners were the absolute owners of the lands. In paragraph 1 of the petition they would claim, they were the owners of the land whereas in paragraph 2 they would contend, they offered land measuring about 62 acres. Page 16 of the writ petition was the notice to demand justice where the four writ petitioners made claim, they agreed and sold 62 acres of land to the company during the period 1988-1990 for which they would be entitled to 32 employments as per the Land Losers Scheme. As and by way of alternative proposal, they would contend, if employment was not possible they would be ready to settle the issue with the Coal Company at the rate of 1600 metric ton coal per acre. Since the Coal Company did not actively consider such proposal four writ petitioners filed the said writ petition.

The learned Single Judge by an order dated October 7, 1999 disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon the Respondent to allot coal at the rate of 1600 metric ton per acre for 62 acres. The order was passed in absence of the respondents.

The Coal Company made an application for modification that came up before the learned Single Judge when His Lordship disposed of the application for modification along with the writ petition that had been possibly disposed of by the earlier order.

The learned Single Judge passed the order on February 15, 2001 asking the Coal Company to decide the matter in accordance with law “Accepting Mr. Paul and the other members of his family who were not represented at the time of hearing in connection with the plots mentioned in the writ petition and shall pass a reasoned order”.

Thus we find, by the order dated October 7, 1999 the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing allotment of coal. W hen the Coal Company applied for modification His Lordship modified the order by directing the Coal Company to consider the representation. While doing so, the learned Judge observed, Coal Company would consider “Mr. Paul and other members of his family”. Pertinent to note, all the four writ petitioners were having a common title “Paul” hence, it is not clear to us whether “Mr. Paul” would mean one of the petitioners having three other writ petitioners as his family members or the learned Judge wanted to mean some other family members who were not parties to the writ petition. However, learned Judge was consistent on 62 acres of land.

Accordingly, the authority considered the representation by an order dated April 19, 2001 appearing at page 206 of the paper book. From the reasoned order it appears, the Coal Company called all the four writ petitioners for hearing along with “other petitioners” who signed the representation on March 9, 2001. We are told by Mr. Talukdar appearing for the appellants, they were nineteen in numbers. The concern authority verified the records and found, the original writ petiti