Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Prakash Shrivastava, Rajarshi Bharadwaj, JJ.
Eastern Coalfields Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mahabali Techno Engineers And Others - Respondent
APOT No. 36, 37 of 2021, WPO No. 502, 503 of 2019, I.A. No. GA 2 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2022
e-auction scheme - Refund of excess amount - ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. - Union of India - Somal Pipes Private Limited - Eastern Coalfields Limited - S.J. Coke Industries Private Limited - [2004-05 e-auction scheme, article 14 of the Constitution, refund of excess amount, binding nature of Supreme Court's decision]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a challenge to the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPO 502 of 2019 and WPO 503 of 2019, directing the appellants to refund the respondent writ petitioner's excess amount of e-auction sale proceeds over the notified price derived from the respective e-auction. The Union of India had enacted a scheme in 2004-05 for sale of coal by electronic auction, which was subsequently challenged in various courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had declared the e-auction scheme as ultra vires and directed refund of excess amounts in several cases. The respondents filed petitions claiming refund, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the e-auction scheme was struck down as ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and subsequent judgments held the coal companies liable to refund the entire money collected in excess of the notified prices. The court rejected the plea of delay in approaching the court, citing the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision and the statutory liability of the coal company to refund the excess amount. The court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the e-auction scheme, the liability of coal companies to refund excess amounts, and the plea of delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd., Somal Pipes Private Limited, Eastern Coalfields Limited, and S.J. Coke Industries Private Limited established the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision, the liability of coal companies to refund excess amounts, and the statutory liability of the coal company to refund the excess amount. The court also emphasized that delay and latches is not an absolute impediment to exercising discretion under article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, affirming the entitlement of the respondents to the refund of the amount paid in excess of the notified price and the statutory liability of the coal company to refund the same.
JUDGMENT
Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - This order will govern the disposal of aPOT No. 36 of 2021 and aPOT No. 37 of 2021 as in both these appeals, the respondents in the writ petitions have challenged the common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12th January, 2021 in WPO 502 of 2019 and WPO 503 of 2019. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and has directed the appellants to refund the respondent writ petitioner's excess amount of e-auction sale proceeds over the notified price derived from the respective e-auction.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the Union of India had enacted a scheme in the year 2004-05 for sale of coal by electronic auction (e-auction) inter alia providing the manner and the mode relating to sale, distribution and pricing of various grades of coal. Various writ petitions were filed in different High Courts challenging the validity of the scheme and finally the matter reached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries (P) Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others wherein on 12th December, 2005, a common interim order was passed directing the writ petitioners to go on paying the price in addition to the notified price of coal at 33 1/3 % of the enhanced price, each time they claim supply of coal and to furnish security for the balance 66 2/3% of the enhanced price of coal fixed in the scheme. By the judgment dated 1st December, 2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter in the case of ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 640 and allowed the writ petitions holding that the e-auction scheme was violative of article 14 of the Constitution and declaring the same as ultra vires. Subsequently, by order dated 30th October, 2007 in the matter of Somal Pipes Private Limited vs. Coal India Limited and Others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 721 in Transfer Petitions/Contempt Petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed refund of excess amount to the writ petitioners for which the sureties/bank guarantees were furnished. Based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. (Supra) several writ petitions were filed in various High Courts and the matter again reached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Tetulia Coke Plant Private Limited and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 624, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that once the scheme is set at nought, the consequential action following the said e-auction by the coal company has also been declared illegal and therefore, coal companies became liable to refund the entire money which was collected in excess of notified price and that the effect of the decision in ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. (Supra) would not be restricted only to those cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but to all those cases which were pending in different High Courts at that Stage. Based upon the above judgment and subsequent judgment in the case of S.J. Coke Industries Private Limited vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 72, the respondents (writ petitioners) had filed the petitions claiming refund which were allowed by the learned Single Judge by the order under challenge in these appeals.
3. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the writ petitioners had approached the Court for the first time in the year 2019, therefore, their petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches whereas, submission of learned Counsel for the respondent (writ petitioners) is that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. (Supra) is a judgment in rem and in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Eastern Coalfields Limited (Supra), the appellants have no option but to refund the excess amount and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the gr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision, the liability of coal companies to refund excess amounts, and the statutory liability of the co....
The executive must comply with judicial orders and cannot deny claims based on non-party status in prior litigation, as Supreme Court rulings are binding on all similarly situated parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to claim refund arises under the Constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 141 of the Constitution and is unfettered by the statute ....
Court upheld prior ruling declaring e-auction scheme invalid, ordering refunds for excess payments collected by coal companies.
Contempt case – Order passed by Court has to be faithfully complied with.
Presence of an arbitration clause would oust jurisdiction under Article 226.
The proper recourse for ascertaining loss under the Scheme was through arbitration as per Clause 11.12, and the Petitioner was entitled to interest on the deposited coal value.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the bank's confirmation of the sale to the petitioner and notice of successfu....
The court emphasized that orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are required to stand or fall on their own and subsequent explanations by way of affidavit(s) cannot be permitt....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
