S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC. versus CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 08-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 818 
A 
S.J. COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC. 
B 
v. 
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3399-3400 of 2015) 
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. 
c 
Allowing the appeals by the writ petitioners-Coal 
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 enrich

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.