EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. MAHABALI TECHNO ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 12/1/2021 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 eauction sale proceeds over the notified price derived from the respective eauction.

(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 (eauction) 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 12/12/2005, 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 1 st 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 SCC640 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 dtd. 30/10/2007 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 ground of delay. He has submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error. Learned Counsel for both the parties have placed reliance upon several judgments in support of their respective plea.