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.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since the issues involved in the instant batch of writ petitions are identical, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner(s), all these matters have been tagged together, as would be evident from order dated 23.04.2019. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Common Prayer made in the writ petitions:

2. These writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the common prayer however for quashing of different impugned order(s), as contained in different memo numbers and on different dates. For the sake of brevity, the prayer as made in first case of this batch of cases is quoted as under:

(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue calling upon the respondent authorities to forthwith revoke, rescind, recall, cancel and set aside the letter dated 14/15.06.2016 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent authorities, whereby and whereunder the claim of the Petitioner for refund in terms of order dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure-1) passed by Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2012;

(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to forthwith implement the Judgment and Final Order dated 24.02.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court, interalia, in the W.P. (C) No. 4562 of 2012 (Mugma Coke Oven Private Limited & Others -Vs- Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others) ((Annexure-1);

(c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to forthwith refund to the petitioners amounts collected in excess of notified price during the regime of the e-auction scheme along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund to the petitioners;

(d) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue calling upon the respondents to transmit to this Hon’ble Court all the records relating to the case so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the letter 14/15.06.2016 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent authorities and by refunding to the petitioners amounts collected in excess of notified price during the regime of the e-auction scheme along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund to the petitioners;

(e) Interim Order directing the respondent authorities to implement the Judgment and Final Order dated 24.02.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court, interalia, in W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2012 (Mugma Coke Oven Private Limited & Others -Vs-Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Others) (Annexure-1).

(f) Interim Order directing the respondent authorities to deposit amounts collected in excess of notified price during the regime of the e-auction scheme along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund with this Hon’ble Court till the disposal of the instant writ petition;

Facts of the case:

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 2313 of 2017], reads as under:

4. Petitioners, in batch of writ petitions, are primarily engaged in the business of operating hard coke manufacturing units [commonly referred to as 'cokery']. Such units are registered as small scale industries. The basic and essential raw material for manufacture of hard coke is coking coal [being non-linked washery coking coal of grade W-III and W-IV]. The petitioner is one of the members of Industries Commerce Association, which is an association registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

5. The respondent no. 1-Bharat Coking Coal Limited [BCCL] is a coal producing company and is a wholly owned subsidiary and under direct control of respondent no. 5-Coal India Limited [CIL].

6. The petitioners had earlier moved this Court by filing writ petitions seeking similar prayer. In one of the writ petitions, being W.P. (C) No. 4562 of 2012, the petitioner has claimed refund of the amou