Holding

The Supreme Court held that the ratio decidendi in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Tetulia Coke Plant, applying the Ashoka Smokeless Coal decision, is binding on all courts and obliges the refund of excess amounts with interest to the traders.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals by several coal traders (including S.J. Coke Industries) seeking a refund of excess amounts paid under a government‑mandated e‑auction scheme for coal, which had been declared ultra vires and void by the Court in the Ashoka Smokeless Coal case. The Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) opposed the refunds, arguing delay, laches, lack of statutory right, and unjust enrichment. The Court held that the ratio decidendi in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Tetulia Coke Plant (which applied the Ashoka decision) is binding on all courts under Article 141, and therefore the lower courts were obligated to follow it. Consequently, the Court rejected CCL's pleas of delay, limitation, and unjust enrichment, directing CCL to verify each claim and refund the excess with 6% interest. The appeals filed by the coal traders were allowed, and the appeals filed by CCL were dismissed.

Issues considered

The e‑auction scheme for coal is ultra vires under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the refund of excess amount claimed by the traders is maintainable as a writ petition.
Whether the doctrine of limitation, delay, laches, or unjust enrichment bars the claim.
The binding effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on subsequent similar cases under Article 141.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. Order 41 Rule 22
Companies Acts. 1956
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 141

Subjects

e‑auction schemerefund of excess amountArticle 14Article 141binding precedentundue enrichmentlimitation periodcontractual claimpublic sector undertakingSupreme Court of India

Judgment

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 818

A S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC.
v.
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3399-3400 of 2015)
B
APRIL 08, 2015
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
c Constitution oflndia, 1950 - Arts. 141, 14 - Scheme for
sale of coal by electronic auction (e-auction) by Coal
Company (CCL), a public sector undertaking - Said
Scheme declared ultra vires in Ashoka Smokeless Coal
Industries (P) Ltd.'s case - In Central Coalfields Ltd. and
D Eastern Coalfields Ltd. case direction issued to refund
excess amount recovered by the Coal Companies from the
coal consumer with 6% interest, which became payable to
them con~equent upon the scheme being declared bad in
law - Thereafter, instant coal consumer filed writ petitions
E against Coal Company before the High Court claiming
refund of excess amount charged with 6% interest - Single
Judge allowed the writ petition - However, the Division
Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge - On appeal,
held: Once this Court decided the issue in the case of
F Eastern Coalfields Ltd. by passing a reasoned order, a
fortiori, the ratio decidendi declared in the said decision was
binding on all the Courts in the country for giving effect to it
while deciding the /is of the same nature - Both the courts
below were under legal obligation to have taken note of the
G said decision and then should have decided the writ petition!
appeal in conformity with the law laid down therein, because
controversy involved in both the cases was similar in nature
- Approach of the two courts below in deciding the issue

H 818
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL 819
COALFIELDS LTD.

though it was of reversal cannot be approved - On facts, A
untenable pleas were being raised by CCL just to defeat the
legitimate claim of the citizens determined in their favour by
this Court in earlier litigations and which was known to CCL
- Thus, there is no justification to deny the benefit of refund
of excess amount to the instant coal consumer on the B
ground of pf)rity with the coal consumer of Central Coalfields
Ltd. and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Case - Direction issued to
CCL to verify the claim of each of the coal consumers and
refund the excess amount with 6% interest.
Allowing the appeals by the writ petitioners-Coal
c
Consumers and dismissing the appeals by the Coal
Company-CCL, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Article 141 of the Constitution provides
that the law declared by this Court shall be binding on D
all Courts within the territory of India. Therefore, once
this Court decided the issue in the case of Eastern
Coalfields on 10.08.2011 by passing a reasoned order,
a fortiori, the ratio decidendi declared in the said
decision was binding on all the Courts in the country E
for giving effect to it while deciding the /is of the same
nature. Both the Courts below were, therefore, under
legal obligation to have taken note of the said decision
and then should have decided the writ petition/appeal
in conformity with the law laid down therein, because F
controversy involved in both the cases was similar in
nature. The approach of the two courts below in
deciding the issue though it was of reversal cannot be
countenanced. Both the courts failed to do so thereby
rendering the impugned decision bad in law. [Paras 35, G
36] [833-C-E]
1.2 This Court in no uncertain terms held in Eastern
Coalfields case that benefit of decision rendered in the
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India is not confined to those H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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. This Court, therefore, upheld the relief of
refund of excess amount, which was granted to the writ
petitioner by the High Court of Calcutta. There is no
B justification to deny the benefit to the instant Companies
on the ground of parity with the writ petitioner of Central
Coalfields Ltd. and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. case. Further,
the express challenge laid before this Court at the
instance of Eastern Coalfields on the issue of undue
C enrichment was repelled. In this view of the matter, it
cannot be appreciated as to on what basis, the another
Coal Company alike Eastern Coal Company can now be
allowed to raise the same plea again in these
proceedings only because this matter arise from
D another High Court. This Court having rejected the
issue of undue enrichment in the case of Eastern
Coalfields while dealing with the similar controversy, the
same issue is no longer available to any other Coal
Company to raise in similar pending proceedings. It is
E more so when no distinguishing feature in both the
cases were brought to the notice. The view taken by the
Division Bench when it proceeded to dismiss the writ
petitions on the ground of delay and laches cannot be
concurred with. The Single Judge, rightly entertained
F the writ petitions on merits and proceeded to grant relief
as claimed by the companies in the writ petition and the
Division Bench, should have upheld the view of the
Single Judge. [Para 37-39, 41, 43] [835-G-H; 836-A-B;
837-B-D; 838-G]
G
1.3 Keeping in view the stand taken by the CCL and
the manner in which they contested the cases at all
stages in different High Courts and in this Court by
raising same pleas despite their adjudication by this
H Court lead to draw a conclusion that untenable pleas
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. CENTRAL 821
COALFIELDS LTD.

were being raised by CCL just to defeat the legitimate A
claim of the citizens determined in their favour by this
Court in earlier litigations and which was known to CCL.
The CCL is directed to verify the claim of each of the
writ petitioners and then after giving adjustment of any
amount if already found paid to the writ petitioners B
against their claim refund the balance amount along
with 6% interest, to the respective writ petitioners.
[Paras 47, 50] [840-B, F]
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Tetulia Coke Plant Private C
Ltd. & Ors. 2011 (9) SCR 1103: (2011) 14 SCC 624 - relied
on.
Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 718: (2006) 9
SCC 228; Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. D
Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 954: (2007)
2 SCC 640; Bhagwati Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. CWJC 7753/2008;; Firm
Kaluram Sitaram Vs. The Dominion of India AIR 1954
Bombay 50 - referred to. E
Case Law Reference
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 718 Referred to. Para 9
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 954 Referred to. Para 10
F
2011 (9) SCR 1103 Relied on. Para44
AIR 1954 Bombay 50 Referred to. Para 46
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
3399-3400 of 2015. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2012 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1574 & 1581
of 2012.
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A WITH
C.A. Nos. 3419, 3401, 3402, 3403, 3404, 3405, 3406,
3407, 3408, 3409, 3410 & 3411 of 2015.
S. D. Sanjay, Devashish Bharuka, Anu Tyagi, Gaurav
B Agrawal, Anip Sachthey, Shagun Matta for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
c 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 LP.A Nos. 1574, 1581, 1504, 1571,
1597 and 1591 of 2012 and judgment/order dated
18.01.2013 in LP.A No. 85 of 2013 whereby the High Court
D 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.
E 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.
F
4. These Companies are private limited companies
registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They are
engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various
grades of Coal. The CCL is a Public Sector Undertaking of
G the Government of India engaged in the business of producing
various grades of Coal. The CCL sells coal to several bulk
coal consumers including the present Companies, who are
linked consumer of the Coal. The Coal being an essential
commodity, its prices and mode of disposal are governed by
H the Acts/Regulations/Control Orders and the Policies made
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 823
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

by the Central Government/Coal Companies from time to A
time.
5. With a view to further streamline the sale and
distribution of the Coal to its consumers all over the Country,
the Union of India enacted a Scheme in the year 2004-2005
8
for sale of Coal by electronic auction (e- auction). The Scheme
inter alia provided the manner and the mode relating to sale,
distribution and pricing of various grades of coal. The Coal
India Ltd and its several subsidiary companies including the
CCL adopted the Scheme for its implementation.
c
6. The legality and validity of the Scheme was challenged
by filing writ petitions in various High Courts by the traders,
and several companies dealing with coal. So far as the
present Companies were concerned, they filed writ petitions
before the Jharkhand High Court. During the pendency of the D
writ petitions, different High Courts passed interim orders
directing the writ petitioners to furnish indemnity bonds/Bank
Guarantees for the amount of difference between the notified
price and e-auction weighted average price of the Coal fixed
in the Scheme. E
7. Some High Courts decided the writ petitions finally on
merits and while allowing the writ petitions declared the
Scheme as ultra vires whereas some High Courts dismissed
the writ petitions and upheld the Scheme as being legal and F
proper. In some High Courts, the writ petitions remained
pending. The appeals were filed in this Court arising out of
the disposed of matters by both parties. This Court then
passed an order directing transfer of all pending writ petitions
in various High Courts to this Court and tagged them with a G
bunch of the writ petitions/appeals pending in this Court and
made Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors. as the main matter for disposal.
8. Accordingly, Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd.
was taken up for consideration along with other connected H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A matters to decide the main question as to whether e-auction
Scheme 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?
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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 declared the
Scheme as ultra vires were upheld. As a result, several writ
petitions pending in various High Courts were disposed of in
F the light of this decision. Thereafter by order dated
30.10.2007 in Transfer Petitions/Contempt Petitions, this
Court directed refund of excess amount to the writ petitioners
for which the sureties/Bank Guarantees had been furnished.
So far as the present companies were concerned, their claim
G in the writ petitions was for the months of April, July and
October, 2005.
11. The decision rendered in Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India Ltd. (supra) gave rise to filing of several writ petitions
H by similarly situated coal consumers in different High Courts
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 825
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

such as Patna, Calcutta, Jharkhand etc. seeking mandamus A
against the Coal Companies to refund the excess amount
with interest which was realized by the coal companies
pursuant to the Scheme from the writ petitioners.
12. The Single Judge of the Patna High Court by order
B
dated 01.07.2009 passed in Bhagwati Coke Industries Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. (CWJC 7753/
2008) allowed the writ petition and directed the Central
Coalfields Ltd. to refund the entire amount which they had
collected from the writ petitioners in excess of the notified
price of the coal pursuant to the Scheme along with 12%
c
interest.
13. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the CCL filed LP.A.
No. 1094 of 2009. By order dated 17.02.2010, the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal but reduced D
the rate of interest payable on excess refund amount from
12% to 6%. Dissatisfied with the said order, the Central
Coalfields Ltd. filed Special Leave Petition (c) No. 17406/
2010 before this Court. By order dated 19.07.2010, this Court
dismissed the special leave petition in limine and confirmed E
the order passed by the Division Bench.
14. It may be pertinent to mention here that similar writ
petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court by the coal trader
(Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd.) seeking refund of excess amount
F
paid by them pursuant to the Scheme to Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. with interest. The Division Bench of the said High Court
by order dated 04.10.2010 allowed the writ petition and
issued a mandamus directing the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to
refund the entire amount which they had collected in excess G
from the writ petitioner pursuant to the Scheme. Felt aggrieved,
• the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. 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 H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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 thee-auction Scheme
B
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
c 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
D
dismissed the appeal filed by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
which arose out of the order passed by the Calcutta High
Court on the similar issue of refund of excess amount which
had become payable consequent upon declaration of e-
auction Scheme as bad in law, the present Companies filed
E
writ petitions on 10.08.2010 and 07.09.2010 against the
Central CoalfieJds Ltd. before the High Court of Patna out of
which these appeals arise and claimed refund of entire
excess amount of the difference paid between the notified
F prices of the Coal and the one fixed pursuant to the e-auction
Scheme with interest .
16. According to the Companies, they were entitled to get
refund of excess amount with interest from the CCL
consequent upon the e-auctio Scheme being declared bad
G in law by this Court and further in the light of law laid down in
two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Central
Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) •
because their cases were identical in nature in all respects
with the writ petitioners of these two cases decided by this
H
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 827
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Court. Other traders like the present Companies also filed writ A
petitions claiming same reliefs against the respective
Coalfield companies.
17. The CCL contested the writ petitions essentially on
two grounds. In the first place, it was contented that the writ
B
petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches on the part of the writ petitioners because it was filed
to claim refund of excess payment made in April 2005 to
October 2005 in the year 2010. In the second place, it was
contended that keeping in view the principle of undue
enrichment operating against the writ petitioners involving
c
disputed issues of facts, the writ petitioners were not entitled
to claim refund of any excess amount in writ jurisdiction.
18. The Single Judge repelled both the contentions of the
CCL and while allowing the writ petitions issued a mandamus D
directing the CCL to refund the entire excess amount paid by
the writ petitioners to CCL pursuant to e- auction Scheme to
the writ petitioners with interest payable on such amount at
the rate of 6%.
E
19. Felt aggrieved, the CCL filed LPAs before the High
Court of Patna out of which these appeals arise. By impugned
order, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and while
setting aside the order of the Single Judge dismissed the writ
petitions filed by the Companies on the grounds that firstly,
F
the claim of the writ petitioners was not based on any
fundamental or statutory right 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
G
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 H
'828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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.
B "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 12th December 2005 they did purchase
C 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 paid and the
D amount liable to be refunded. The said specific
statements made in the writ petitions are not
categorically denied by the appellants. A bare
statement that the writ petitions involved disputed
questions of fact will not take the petitions out of
E the jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of specific
denial, the contention ought to be rejected and is
rejected. We are also not impressed by the
argument that the claim of the writ petitioners
requires to be rejected on the princjples of unjust
F enrichment. The matter at hand is a purely
commercial transaction between the appellant
and the writ petitioners. The principle of unjust
enrichment has been developed in respect of the
statutory dues payable to the Government by way
G of a tax/a duty/a fee. The principle has not yet been
extended to the commercial transactions of the
Government which are governed by terms and
conditions of the contract. We do not propose to
expand the horizons. The contention is rejected.
H
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 829
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

····························································································································· A
In our opinion, in any view of the matter, the writ
petitioners are notentitled to the relief for,
(i) The claim for refund made by the writ petitioners is not
based on a fundamental or a statutory right; B
(ii) the refund claimed by the writ petitioners arise from a
contract of sale and purchase:
(iii) the claim is not supported by any direction of the High
Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court for refund of such C
amounts; the question of honouring the direction of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Court does not
arise, and;
(iv) indisputably, the claim has been made after expiry of D
period of limitation prescribed for bringing a civil
action."
21. Feeling aggrieved, both parties i.e. writ petitioners
(companies) and the Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) have filed
these appeals by way of special leave before this Court. E
22. So far as the writ petitioners (companies) are
concerned, they have filed appeals against the findings, which
resulted in dismissal of their writ petitions whereas so far as
Central Coalfields· Ltd (CCL) is concerned, they have F
challenged the finding of undue enrichment, which was
decided by the Division Bench against them.
23. This is how the entire controversy is now under
challenge before this Court in these appeals at the instance
of both the parties to the original writ petitions. G
24. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
25. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Companies(writ petitioners) while assailing the legality
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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) was binding on the High Court, which unfortunately
was neither noticed much less given effect to while deciding
E
the issue.
27. Thirdly, learned counsel contended that the Division
Bench erred in holding that the writ petitions filed by the
Companies were barred by limitation because they were filed
F beyond the period of three years from the date of accrual of
cause of action. According to learned Counsel, this finding is
equally untenable in law for the reason that firstly this issue
was considered, dealt with and then rejected by this Court in
Eastern Coalfields Case; secondly, the cause of action to file
G writ petition for claiming refund of excess amount arose on
19.07.2010 when the SLP filed by the Central Coalfields
(CCL) was dismissed (Annexure-14) by this Court in limine
'
,,
thereby finally settling the controversy relating to claim of
refund of excess amount; thirdly, though law of limitation did
H
•
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 831
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

not apply to the writ petitions yet the Companies filed the writ A
petitions within one month (10.08.2010) from the date of
dismissal of SLP by this Court (19.07 .2010) in the case of
CCL and hence the writ petitions should have been held to
have been filed within reasonable time from the date of
accrual of cause of action. In other words, it should not have B
been dismissed on the ground of delay and !aches.
28. Fourthly, learned Counsel contended that once the
issues in question at the instance of similarly situated person
were settled by this Court then every one alike was entitled C
to get the benefit of such decision against the State or/and
its instrumentality on the principle of equality enshrined under
Article 14. Since the cases of the Companies (writ
petitioners) were identical to the case of writ petitioners who
were parties to the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. and D
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. wherein all the issues raised by the
CCL were discussed thread bear and eventually rejected by
this Court, the CCL was not entitled to raise the same pleas
again in these appeals to persuade this Court to take a
contrary view to the one taken in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. E
(supra) case except to accept the verdict of this Court
rendered in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) case for grant of
same benefit to all similarly situated persons such as the
appellants herein.
29. Fifthly, learned counsel contended that the Division F
Bench rightly decided the issue of undue enrichment 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 G
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 t~e alternative,
it was also urged that the appeals filed by the CCL were not
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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 that the Division
Bench erred in deciding the issue of undue enrichment
D against the CCL. According to learned counsel, it should have
been decided in their favour for dismissal of the writ petitions.
32. Having heard the learned Counsel the parties and on
perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the
E submissions of learned counsel for the Companies (writ
petitioners) and hence are inclined to allow the appeals filed
by the writ petitioners (companies).
33. In our considered view, all the issues arising in these
cases including the submissions urged by the learned counsel
F for the parties as mentioned above were already decided by
this Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and
hence the writ petitions and the appeals arising therefrom
should have been decided by the writ court and the appellate
court (Division Bench) in the light of the law laid down in the
G said decision.
34. It is really unfortunate that though the decision of this
Court in the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(supra) was holding the
field having been rendered during the pendency of the writ
H petition on 10.08.2011 yet neither the Single Judge who
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 833
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

decided the writ petition on 02.04.2012 and nor the Division A
Bench who decided the appeal on 14.12.2012 took note of
the decision much less referred to it in their respective
judgments. We cannot, therefore, countenance the approach
of the two courts below in deciding the issue though it was of
reversal. B
35. Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law
declared by this Court shall be binding on all Courts within
the territory of India. Therefore, once this Court decided the
issue in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(supra) on C
10.08.2011 by passing a reasoned order, a fortiori, the ratio
decidendi declared in the said decision was binding on all
the Courts in the country for giving effect to it while deciding
the lis of the same nature. Both the Courts below were,
therefore, und€r legal obligation to have taken note of the said D
decision and then should have decided the writ petition/
appeal in conformity with the law laid down therein. It was more
so because controversy involved in both the cases was similar
in nature.
36. As observed supra, both the Courts failed to do so E
thereby rendering the impugned decision bad in law.
37. When we peruse the decision of Eastern Coalfields
Ltd., we find no factual distinction between the facts of the
case in hand and the one involved in Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.. F
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 G
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
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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-auction scheme.
10. It must be indicated herein that the present
D
respondent also filed the writ petition in question
in the Calcutta High Court before the aforesaid
decision was rendered and in his case also an
interim order was passed by the Calcutta High
Court. After the disposal of Ashoka Smokeless
E
Coal India (P) Ltd., the writ petition filed by the
respondent perein which was pending was also
considered and the same was allowed following
the decision of this Court in Ashoka Smokeless
F Coal India (P) Ltd. as by that decision, this Court
has declared the entire scheme to be invalid and
ultra vires to the Constitution. Therefore, any
action taken pursuant to the said scheme is also
illegal and null and void. Following the ratio of the
G said decision this Court directed the coal
companies to refund the price of the coal paid in
excess of the notified price under the a-auction
scheme. Certain guidelines were also laid down as
to how such payments are to be made. The said
H decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 835
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

by the Division Bench of the High Court by A
affirming the conclusions and analysing all the
issues that were raised before it.
11. We are unable to accept the contention of the
learned Additional Solicitor General that whatever
8
is challenged in the present petition is only an
interim order. It is not so because the respondents
herein also challenged the legality of the e-auction
scheme in the writ petition. The High Court has not
disposed of only an interim prayer but has C
disposed of the entire writ petition by its judgment
and order dated 25-3-2010. Consequently, it must
also be held that when the entire scheme is set at
naught by this Court, whatever action has been
taken following the said e- auction by the Coal D
Company has also been declared to be illegal and,
therefore, the Coal Company has become liable to
refund the entire money which was collected in
excess of the notified price. That is the
consequence of quashing of the scheme and the E
same came to be reiterated by this Court while
contempt petitions were filed and were disposed
of. Therefore, it cannot be said that the effect of the
[pic]decision of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P)
Ltd. would be restricted only to those cases which F
were before this Court and not for all cases which
were pending in different High Courts at that
stage, at least to the issues which are common in
nature."
Perusal of the aforequoted paragraphs would go to show G
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
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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.
D 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 writ petition which was filed before the
learned Single Judge. The learned Additional
E Solicitor General was unable to show that any
such defence or plea was taken about unjust
enrichment in the pleadings filed before the
learned Single Judge. Such an issue was also not
argued before the learned Single Judge as no
F such reference is there in the order of the learned
Single Judge. It is, however, stated by the learned
Additional Solicitor General that such an issue was
raised before the Division Bench. But we could not
find the same raised in the pleadings nor was it
G considered. But a mention is made in the judgment
that such a plea was argued. However, on going
through the records, we find that no such ground
has also been taken even in the memorandum of
appeal filed in the present appeal. Therefore,
H without taking a plea of unjust enrichment either
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 837
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

in the writ petition or before this Court, we are not A
inclined to allow him to argue the plea at the time
of argument and entertain such a plea, particularly,
in view of the fact that the respondents did not
have any notice of such a plea taken for the first
time at argument stage." B
39. It is, therefore, clear that the express challenge laid
before this Court at the instance of Eastern Coalfields on the
issue of undue enrichment was repelled. In this view of the
matter, we fail to appreciate as to on what basis, the another C
Coal Company alike Eastern Coal Company can now be
allowed to raise the same plea again in these proceedings
only because this matter arise from another High Court. In
other words, we are of the considered opinion that this Court
having rejected the issue of undue enrichment in the case of
0
Eastern Coalfields (supra) while dealing with the similar
controversy, the same issue is no longer available to any other
Coal Company to raise in similar pending proceedings. It is
more so when no distinguishing feature in both the cases
were brought to our notice. E
40. Coming now to the issue of refund of excess amount
payable to the writ petitioners, we find that this Court· has
examined the said issue in para 13 and decided in favour of
the writ petitioners in following words.
F
"13. In the present case, it is a case of refund of
price recovered by the appellant in excess and not
of any kind of payment of tax or duty. Besides, the
appellant has already refunded such excess
amount realised to many other parties without G
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 H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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 Central Coalfields ltd.
case). Indeed, the Companies could have filed the writ
petitions even subsequent to the decision rendered in the
E case of Eastern Coalfield ltd. (10.08.2011) because it is in
this case, this Court rendered a reasoned judgment finally
repelling all the objections of Coal Companies on merits and
upheld the right of the writ petitioners to claim refund of excess
amount which they had paid to CCL and other coal fields
F pursuant to the Scheme.
43. We cannot, therefore, concur with the view taken by
the Division Bench when it proceeded to dismiss the writ
petitions on the ground of delay and !aches. The Single Judge,
G in our view, rightly entertained the writ petitions on merits and
proceeded to grant relief as claimed by the companies in the
writ petition and the Division Bench, in our opinion, should
have upheld the view of the Single Judge.
44. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find that all the
H five submissions urged by the learned counsel for the
S.J COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. CENTRAL 839
COALFIELDS LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Companies (writ petitioners) found acceptance to this court A
in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and hence the same
deserves to be accepted while deciding these appeals by
placing reliance on the law laid down in Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. We, therefore, do not consider necessary to deal with
these submissions again on their respective merits B
elaborately by taking note of various case law cited by
learned counsel for the appellant.
45. Since we have reiected the ground taken by the
Central Coalfields India Ltd. (CCL) in relation to undue
enrichment on merits, and hence we express no opinion as
c
to whether the appeals filed by them only against the finding
is maintainable or not. We also find that no prayer was made
by learned counsel for the CCL to treat or convert the appeals
filed by CCL as memorandum of cross objection under Order D
41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in appeals
filed by companies so as to enable them to challenge the
impugned finding under order 41 Rule 22. VVe also do not wish
to examine the question as to whether cross objection is
permissible on behalf of respondent in an appeal arising out E
of SLP filed under Article 136 and leave all these questions
open to be decided in an appropriate case as and when
·Occasion arises in future.
46. Before parting with the case, we consider it opposite
to state that this case reminds us of the subtle observations F
made by Justice M.C. Chagla, Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court in Firm Kaluram Sitaram Vs. The Dominion of India, AIR
1954 Bombay 50. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive
style of writing held as under:
G
" ....we have often had occasion to say that when
the State deals with a citizen it should not
ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is
satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one,
even though legal defences may be open to it, it H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A must act, as has been said by eminent judges, as
an honest person .......... "
47. Keeping in view the stand taken by the CCL and the
manner in which they contested the cases at all stages in
different High Courts and in this Court by raising same pleas
8
despite their adjudi~ation by this Court lead us to draw a
conclusion that untenable pleas were being raised by CCL
just to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizens determined
in their favour by this Court in earlier litigations and which was
C known to CCL.
48. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by
the writ petitioners i.e. appeals arising out of S.L.P.(c' Nos
12925-12926, 13286, 14148, 14576, 15992 & 15993 of
2013 deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed
D though on different reasons which we have given above. As
a consequence, the impugned judgments/orders are set aside
and that of the Single Judge restored.
49. As a consequence, tile appeals filed by the Central
E Coalfields Ltd. - C.A. arising out of S.L.P.(c) Nos. 14430,
15985, 15986, 15987, 15989, 15990 and 15991 of 2013
stand dismissed.
50. The CCL is directed to verify the claim of each of
the writ petitioners and then after giving adjustment of any
F amount if already found paid to the writ petitioners against
their claim in question, refund the balance amount along with
interests at the rate of 6% to the respective writ petitioners
(companies). Let this be done within three months.

G Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.