Jharkhand High Court
M/S Jai Maa Kali Udyog Limited vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 29 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
W.P.(C) No. 2313 of 2017
M/s Jai Maa Kali Udyog Limited, a company duly registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Dhansar, Dhanbad, through its Director, Sri Deepak Kr.
Poddar, son of Shri Sanwarmal Poddar, resident of
Joraphatak Road, P.Ο. & P.S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad.
… Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
-1-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
W.P.(C) No. 2302 of 2017
—-
M/s Kali Mata Soft Coke Manufacturing Industries, having its
registered office at Joraphatak, Dhansar, Dhanbad, through
its proprietor, Sri Rajendra Kr. Poddar, son of Shri
Sanwarmal Poddar, resident of Joraphatak Road, P.O. & P.S.
Dhansar, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011 .
…. Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2304 of 2017
—-
-2-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
M/s Chhotanagpur Hard Coke Industries, having its
registered office at Sanwaria Niwas, Lal Bazaar, Jharia,
Dhanbad- 828111, through its partner, Sir Manish Sanwaria,
son of Prem Kumar Sanwaria, resident of Sanwaria Niwas,
Lal Bazaar, Jharia, Dhanbad- 828 111, P.O. & P.S. Jharia,
District- Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2308 of 2017
—-
M/s Uttamchand Virbhandas & Company, having its
-3-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
registered office at Mittal Bhawan, Temple Road, Manaitand
More, Purana Bazaar, Dhanbad 826001, through its partner,
Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, son of Sri Trilok Chand Agarwal,
resident of Temple Road, Purana Bazaar, Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad Dist. Dhanbad Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhawan, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2312 of 2017
—-
Shree Krishna Hard Coke Industries, having its office at 11,
Gomti Apts, Shanti Bhawan Centre, Bank More, Dhanbad –
-4-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
926001, through its proprietor, Sri Ajay Garg, son of Late
Ram Niwas Agarwal, resident of Krishna Katra, Mithu road,
Bank More, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad P.S. Dhanbad Dist.
Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2314 of 2017
—-
M/s Akash Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company duly
registered under the Companies act, 1956, having its
registered office at 305, New Market, 3rd Floor, Katras Road,
-5-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
(Dhanbad) – 826 001, through its Director, Sri Kedar Nath
Mittal, son of Sri Jailal Agarwalla, resident of Luxmi Kunj
Dhaiya, Near Rani Bandh, P.O. ISM P.S. Dhanbad, Dis.
Dhanbad- 826 004 ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2318 of 2017
—-
M/s Smiriti Sourabh India Private Limited, At Nirshan Kanta,
P.O. Nirsha, Dhanbad At Nirsha Kanta P.O. Nirsha,
Dhanbad Act, 1956, having its registered office at Village
-6-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Panduki, P.O. Nagnagar, District Dhanbad, through its
Director, Sri Surendra Kumar Jain, son of Mr. Mem Chand
Jain, resident of „Madhubani‟ Near four Mill, Dhaiya, Nag
Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhaiya, District, Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2342 of 2017
M/s Oriental Coke Mfg Pvt. Ltd, a company duly registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Lal Bazaar, P.O. Jharia (Dhanbad)- 828 111, through its
-7-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Director, Shri Ramesh Chand Agarwal, son of Late Lokram
Agarwal, resident of Dharamsala Road, Jharia, Dhanbad-
P.O. Jharia P.S. Jharia Dist. Dhanbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2360 of 2017
—-
Shree Durga Hard Coke Manufacturing Company, having its
registered office at Shastri Nagar (East), Dhowtand, Dhanbad
– 826001, through its partner, Sri Sajjan Kumar Kharakia,
son of Late Sagarmal Kharkia, resident of Shastri Nagar
-8-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
(East), Dhanbad- 826 001, P.O. , P.S. & District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2361 of 2017
—-
M/s Mahadev Coke Limited, a company duly registered under
the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Hanuman Charai, P.O. & P.S. Barakar, District Burdwan
(West Bengal), through its Director Shri Harendra Roy, Son of
Sri Harihar Roy, Resident of Village-Brindavanpur, P.O. &
P.S. Mugma, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioner
-9-
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2362 of 2017
—-
Shree Shyam Coke Manufacturing Industries Private Limited,
a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its office at Room No, 421, City Centre, 19 Synagogue
Street, Kolkata 700 001 (West Bengal), through its Director,
Sri Sachida Nand Singh, Son of Late Chandra Ketu Singh,
Resident “Chandra Ketu Bhawan”, Near CMRI Gate, Dhaiya,
P.O. ISM, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad- 826 004.
– 10 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2375 of 2017
—-
M/s OSD Coke Pvt. Ltd., a company duly registered under
the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Shastrinagar, Dhobatand, Dhanbad, through its Director, Sri
Sachin Kumar, son of Late Mahadeo Prasad ray, resident of
Shastri Nagar (east), Dhanbad- 826 001 P.O. Dhanbad P.S.
Dhanbad Dist. Dhanbad … … Petitioner
Versus
– 11 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2376 of 2017
—-
M/s Khetwat Coke Manufacturing Company, having its office
at 206, Industry House, Shanti Bhawan Complex, Bank
More, Dhanbad 826001, through its partner, Sri Hemant
Kumar Gupta, son of Sri Banwarilal Gupta, resident of G-1,
Kaveri apartment, Shanti Bhawan, Bank More, Dhanbad P.O.
P.S. & District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
– 12 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2408 of 2017
—-
M/s Kala Coke & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., a company duly
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office Industrial area, Gidha, Bhojpur (Bihar)
through its Managing Director, Sri Udya Shankar Singh, son
of Late Lakshman Singh, resident of Maharaja Building,
Karman Tola, P.O. & P.S. Nawada (Ara), Dist. Bhojpur
(Bihar). … Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
– 13 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2410 of 2017
—-
M/s Shree Ganesh Laxmi Industries, having its office at
Amjhore, Baliapur, Dhanbad, through its partner, Sri
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, son of Late Puranmal Agarwal,
resident of 301, Lav Kush Apartments, Sri Ram Vatika,
Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S. Dhaiya, District Dhanbad
… Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
– 14 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011.
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2411 of 2017
—-
Shree Dwarka Bee Hive Plant Private Limited, a company
duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at Haryana Colony, P.O. Chirkunda,
Dhanbad 826109, through its Director, Sri Shiv Kumar
Sharma, son of Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma, resident of
Haryana Colony, Upper Bazaar, Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S.
Chirkunda, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
– 15 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2412 of 2017
—-
M/s P R Fuels Private Limited, a company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B.M.
Agarwalla Colony, Dhansar, Dhanbad, 828106, through its
Director, Sri Ram Sahay Singh, son of Late S.N. Singh,
resident of C-32, Bhuneswar Nagar, Varanasi, P.O. , P.S. &
District Varanasi (UP). … … Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
– 16 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2413 of 2017
—-
M/s Sanjay Hard Coke Industries, having its office at Hari
Mandir Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad 826001 through its partner,
Shri Bajrang Lal Agarwal, s/o Shri Suraj Lal Agarwal resident
of Harimandir Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Hirapur,
District Dhanbad
… … Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
– 17 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2414 of 2017
—-
M/s Rahul Coke Private Limited, a company duly registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
306, New Market, 3rd Floor, Katras Road, Dhanbad 826001,
through its Authorized Signatory Sri Dipankar Kumar Sarkar,
Son of Late D.K. Sarkar, Resident of Logabad Colly, P.O.
Bansjora, P.S. Pootki, District Dhanbad- 828 101.
... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
– 18 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2415 of 2017
—-
M/s Maithan Coal Company Private Limited, a company duly
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at Haryana Colony, P.O. Chirkunda,
Dhanbad, through its Director, Sri Shiv Kumar Sharma, son
of Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma, resident of Haryana Colony,
Upper Bazaar, Chirkunda, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda,
District Dhanbad
… … Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
– 19 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2416 of 2017
—-
M/s Shiv Shakti Coke Industries, having its office at 109,
Industry House, Shanti Bhawan Complex, Bank More,
Dhanbad 826001, through its Partner Satyajit Singh, Son of
Late Ekbal Singh Dhingra, Resident of Joraphatak Road, P.O.
Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
– 20 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2417 of 2017
—-
M/s Coal Product India, having its registered office at C-
28/37, Telibagh, Varanasi (UP), through its partner Farooq
Khan, son of Shukrulla Khan, resident of C-28/37,
Teliabagh, Varanasi – 221002 P.O. & P.S., Teliabagh District.
Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
– 21 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2424 of 2017
—-
M/s Bihar Coke Manufacturing Company, having its
registered office at “Chandra Nidhi” Luby Circular Road,
Dhanbad – 826 001 through its partner Navin Kumar
Dalmia, Son of Shri B.P. Dalmia, Resident of Luby Circular
Road, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad- 826
001.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
– 22 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2425 of 2017
—-
Sri Aurobindo Fuels Limited, a company duly registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
Lal Bungla, P.O. KG Ashram, Govindpur, Dhanbad, through
its Director, Shri Pavitra Tulsiyan, Son of Shri Yogendra
Kumar Tulsiyan, Resident of Narayani, Dhaiya, P.O. Nag
Nagar, P.S. Dhaiya, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
– 23 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
with
W.P.(C) No. 2499 of 2017
—-
M/s S.K. Coal and Coke Private limited, a company duly
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at C-28/37, Tellibagh, Varanasi (UP),
through its Director, Javeed Khan, Son of Shukrullah Khan,
Resident of C- 28/37, Teliabagh, Varanasi- 221 002, P.O. &
P.S. Teliabagh, District Varanasi- 221 002.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its office at Koyla
Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S.
Saraidhela, Dhanbad-826005.
2.Chairman/Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
3.General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, having his office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar,
P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
4.Director of Finance, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having his
registered office at Koyla Bhavan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. BCCL
– 24 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Township, P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826005.
5.Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Coal
Bhavan, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, P.O., P.S. & District
Kolkata 700001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director.
6.Union of India, service through Secretary, Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi 110011
… Respondents
——-
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
——
For the Petitioners : Mr. Biren Poddar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Manav Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Alpana Verma, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
Ms. Khushboo Kumar, Advocate
Mr. (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. S. Toppo, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
——–
CAV on 03/04/2024 Pronounced on 29/04/2025
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
– 25 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
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
– 26 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
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:
– 27 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
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 amounts along with interest collected in
excess of notified price during the prevalence of e-auction
scheme of the Coal India Limited, which was held to be illegal
and constitutionally invalid in view of the judgment rendered
by the Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported in
– 28 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
(2007) 2 SCC 640. Petitioners in W.P.C. Nos. 4562 of 2012,
with 4543 of 2012 and 4588 of 2012 approached this Court
with the said prayer claiming refund @ 12% of the excess
amount collected by the respondent- Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, Dhanbad. Whereas petitioners in W.P.C. No. 422 of
2016 had approached this Court earlier in 2009 with the
same prayer seeking quashing of the order dated 02.09.2009
of the General Manager, B.C.C.L whereunder its
representation for refund of the amounts was rejected. This
writ petitioner chose to withdraw the said writ petition after it
has preferred the writ petition being W.P.C No. 422 of 2016
seeking refund of the amount collected in excess relying upon
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.J.
Coke Industries Private Limited & others Vrs. Central
Coalfields Limited & others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 72.
It also sought quashing of the order of rejection of its
representation dated 2.9.2009.
7. The respondents-BCCL appeared and filed counter
affidavit.
8. The writ court, after having heard learned counsel for
the parties, has disposed of the writ petitions and held that
individual petitioners are required to make their
representation together with all necessary facts and
documents before the competent authority under the
– 29 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
respondent- BCCL / the General Manager (S & M), Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. It was further held that on
such representation, consideration be made in accordance
with law by the respondents within a reasonable time
preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order along with representations filed on behalf
individual petitioners. It was further observed that upon such
consideration, if claim of the individual petitioners are found
admissible, the amount in question be refunded along with
interest @ 6% as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited & others
(supra).
9. The writ petitioners herein, in the light of
judgment/order dated 24.02.2016 passed by learned Single
Judge submitted representation(s) along with all necessary
documents and statements made therein in support of their
prayer. The respondent-BCCL whereupon passed the
impugned order(s) rejecting the claim of the petitioners by
dismissing the representation of the petitioners mainly on the
ground that the petitioner(s) was not the party neither before
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court nor before the High Court in the
case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. case.
– 30 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
10. Being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioners have
approached to this Court by filing writ petitions for redressal
of their grievance.
Submission of the Petitioners
11. Mr. B. Poddar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners have appeared in all the cases and has submitted
that the impugned order passed by the respondent-BCCL
suffers from impropriety since the same has been passed in
complete ignorance of power conferred to this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein this Court
has in unequivocal terms directed the respondents-
authorities, in particular, the General Manager (S & M),
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad to take decision on the
claim of the writ petitioner and if the one or others petitioners
are found to be admissible, the amount in question be
refunded along with interest @ 6% as per the ratio laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of S.J.Coke Industries
Private Limited & others (supra) was directed to be paid.
Further submission has been made that the said order
having not been challenged, rather the said order has been
acted upon the day when the decision has been taken by the
authority concerned, but instead of considering the case on
merit for the purpose of issue of entitlement of refund of one
or the writ petitioners, the decision has been taken by
– 31 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
negating the claim merely on the sole ground that one or the
other writ petitioners were not party before the writ Court in
the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
12. It has been contended that once the scheme under
which the money has been deposited by one or the other writ
petitioners been held to be invalid, whatever amount has
been kept by the BCCL, is automatically to be refunded back,
but, instead of taking such decision, the claim, as has been
agitated by filing representations in terms of order dated
24.02.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4562 of 2012
and batch matters has been rejected solely on the ground
that the petitioners were not party before the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd.
& Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has decided the issue of validity
of the scheme under which the money has been deposited by
one or the other writ petitioners to the BCCL and once the
said scheme has been held to be invalid then automatic
applicability of the said judgment will be upon all identically
placed party and merely one or the other party has not
approached to the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it does not mean that
the scheme which has been held to be invalid will not be said
to be applicable with respect to one or other writ petitioners
– 32 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
and money which has been deposited in the said scheme will
not be refunded.
14. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners based upon
the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the reason which
has been assigned in the impugned order passed by the
respondent-BCCL cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye
of law.
Submission on behalf of respondents-BCCL
15. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents-BCCL
defending the order passed by the respondents-BCCL has
jointly submitted that the impugned order suffers from no
error since the decision which has been rendered by Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P)
Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is only with
respect to the party to the proceeding since the judgment was
not in rem rather it was judgment in persona.
16. Further the claim of the litigants of Ashoka Smokeless
Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra) has been considered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
and while considering so the cases of several litigants has
been rejected after giving finding by questioning the veracity
of the document(s) before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Hence, if
the reason has been assigned in the impugned order of being
not a party to the proceeding in the case of Ashoka
– 33 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India
& Ors. (supra) is there, the same cannot be said to be invalid
reason, for the reason that when the Hon‟ble Apex Court itself
has considered the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India
(P) Ltd, then where is the case of consideration of cases of
other litigants in the light of order passed by Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the said case even by taking any independent
decision based upon the proposition propounded in the case
of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra).
17. Learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL based upon
the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned
order(s) requires no interference by this Court.
Analysis
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the pleadings available on record.
19. On the basis of pleadings available on record as also
argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
following questions are required to be answered by this Court
for proper adjudication of lis:
I. Whether the order passed by the writ Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the
respondent-BCCL to decide the individual
claim/representation of the writ petitioners can be
– 34 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
considered to be command, if yes, then is it available
for the respondent-BCCL to take a ground that
merely because one or other petitioners were not
party in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India
(P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra)
their cases cannot be considered giving go by to the
order passed by the writ Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, without assailing the same
before higher forum?
II. Whether is it available to the respondent-
BCCL to take the ground of not being a party in
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court and taking the said reason for not
considering the claim of one or other writ petitioners,
will amount to sitting over the order passed by the
writ Court passed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?
III. Whether the judgment passed by Hon‟ble
Apex Court declaring the scheme under which
amount has been deposited by one or other writ
petitioners when has been held to be invalid/illegal,
will it not be applicable to other litigants and will be
restricted only to the litigant(s) before the Hon‟ble
– 35 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Apex Court by giving go by to the Article 141 of the
Constitution of India read with Article 144 thereof,
said to be proper?
IV. Whether the order passed by the authority of
respondent-BCCL can be said to be passed in
consonance with the order passed by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra) and S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited &
others Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited & others
(supra)?
20. Since all the issues are identical, as such they are taken
up together for the purpose of their consideration but before
consideration of the aforesaid issues, the admitted facts
involved in the lis needs to refer herein, as per the pleading
made in the writ petition vis-Ã -vis the factual aspect involved
in the case of S.J. Coke Industries Private Limited &
others Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited & others (supra).
21. Factual aspect involved in the case of S.J. Coke
Industries Private Limited is as under :
“3. 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. CCL is a public sector undertaking of the
Government of India engaged in the business of producing
various grades of coal. CCL sells coal to several bulk coal
– 36 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
consumers including the present companies, who are linked
consumer of coal. Coal being an essential commodity, its
prices and mode of disposal are governed by the
Acts/Regulations/Control Orders and the policies made by
the Central Government/coal companies from time to time.
4. With a view to further streamline the sale and distribution
of coal to its consumers all over the country, the Union of
India enacted a scheme in the year 2004-2005 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. Coal India Ltd. and its several subsidiary
companies including CCL adopted the Scheme for its
implementation.
5. 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 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 coal fixed in the Scheme.
6. 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
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 the 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 bunch of the writ petitions/appeals pending in
this Court and made Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India as the main matter for disposal.
– 37 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
7. Accordingly, Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. was
taken up for consideration along with other connected
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?
10. The decision rendered in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India
Ltd. [(2007) 2 SCC 640] gave rise to filing of several writ
petitions by similarly situated coal consumers in different
High Courts such as Patna, Calcutta, Jharkhand, etc.
seeking mandamus against the coal companies to refund the
excess amount with interest which was realised by the coal
companies pursuant to the Scheme from the writ petitioners.
11. The Single Judge of the Patna High Court by order dated
1-7-2009 passed in Bhagwati Coke Industries (P)
Ltd. v. Central Coal Field Ltd. [ CWJC No. 7753 of 2008,
order dated 1-7-2009 (Pat)] allowed the writ petition and
directed 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% interest. Feeling aggrieved by this order, CCL filed
LPA No. 1094 of 2009. By order dated 17-2-2010 [Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhagwati Coke Industries (P) Ltd., LPA No.
1094 of 2009, order dated 17-2-2010 (Pat)] , the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal but reduced
the rate of interest payable on excess refund amount from
12% to 6%. Dissatisfied with the said order, Central
Coalfields Ltd. filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17406 of
2010 before this Court. By order dated 19-7-2010 [Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhagwati Coke Industries (P) Ltd., SLP (C)
No. 17406 of 2010, order dated 19-7-2010 (SC)] , this Court
dismissed the special leave petition in limine and confirmed
the order passed by the Division Bench.
13. It is with these background facts in relation to the
legality of the E-auction Scheme which finally
terminated in the writ petitioners’ (coal
– 38 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
consumer/trader/supplier) favour on 1-12-2006 when
this Court struck down the E-auction Scheme
in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India [(2007) 2 SCC 640] and
on 19-7-2010 [Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhagwati Coke
Industries (P) Ltd., SLP (C) No. 17406 of 2010, order dated
19-7-2010 (SC)] 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
with interests @ 6% which had become payable to the writ
petitioners consequent upon the Scheme being declared bad
in law in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India [(2007) 2 SCC 640]
and lastly again on 10-8-2011 in Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. v. Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd. [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012)
4 SCC (Civ) 981] When this Court dismissed the appeal filed
by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. which arose out of the order
[Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd., APO
No. 226 of 2010, order dated 4-10-2010 (Cal)] 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 writ petitions on 10-8-2010 and 7-9-2010
against Central Coalfields 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 prices of coal and the one fixed pursuant to the E-
auction Scheme with interest.‖
22. It is evident from the factual aspect, as referred herein,
that one or the other writ petitioners has deposited the
amount under the scheme but the said scheme has been held
to be invalid by the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court
in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra). The legality of the scheme of
e-auction was challenged by filing writ petitions in various
– 39 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
High Courts by the traders and companies dealing with coal.
Some of those petitions were transferred to the Apex Court
pursuant to orders of this Court, the leading case being
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. (supra) was taken up
for consideration along with connected matters and the same
were disposed of by the Hon‟ble Apex Court by which the
scheme of e-auction was held to be invalid and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and declared to be ultra
vies to the Constitution as such the Hon‟ble Apex Court
quashed the e-auction scheme. The relevant paragraphs of
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union
of India & Ors. (supra) is quoted as under:
“2. The validity and/or legality of a scheme framed by Coal
India Limited for sale of coal by electronic auction (e-auction)
is in question in these appeals and transferred applications.
E-auction
45. A new scheme known as e-auction was made
purportedly to meet the liberalisation policy of the Central
Government in regard to import of coal and opening of private
coal mines and to provide pragmatic and transparent system
of distribution of coal. 4.8 million tonnes of coal were offered
to the non-core sector in 2003-2004. The quantity earmarked
for non-core sector was restricted to 933 validly linked
consumers. The objectives of the said scheme are stated to
be as under:
―Objectives
The present system of sale of coal to non-core sector
consumers needs to be made more pragmatic and
transparent by accommodating the following changes:
– 40 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
(a) A consumer having requirement of specified quality of coal
from a particular colliery/source and siding/pilot should
have an access to buy coal by paying the market determined
price for the same.
(b) This approach would enable the non-core sector
consumers to receive coal of their choice, on payment of
market price, determined through auction confined to non-
core sector consumers.‖
Conclusion
188. Coal being a scarce commodity, its utility for the
purpose for which it is needed is essential. Although,
technically, in view of the fact that no price is fixed for coal,
there may not be any black marketing in the technical sense
of the terms; but this Court cannot also encourage black
marketing in general sense. Nobody should be allowed to
take undue advantage while dealing with a scarce
commodity. The very fact that despite best efforts of the
Central Government, the coal companies failed to curb the
menace of a section of people and to deal in coal excluding
other general people therefrom or the linked consumers
misusing their position of obtaining allotment of coal either
wholly or in part, it is absolutely necessary that some
mechanism should be found out for plugging the loopholes.
The Union of India or the coal companies appear to have lost
confidence in the State Governments. They had carried out
joint inspection and in that process they must have arrived
at a satisfaction about the genuineness of the claims of
industrial units for which the linkage system was meant for.
189. Before us most of the consumers, with a view to obtain
supply of coal had filed documents to prove their
genuineness. The said documents must be scrutinised by the
authorities of the coal companies. In the event, they have any
suspicion, inspection should be carried out by officers
appointed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the
company concerned within whose jurisdiction the unit is
situated.
– 41 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
190. With a view to evolve a viable policy, a committee
should be constituted by the Union of India with the
Secretary of Coal being the Chairman. In such a committee, a
technical expert in coal should also be associated as most of
the projects involve consumers of coal, particularly
manufacturers of hard coke and smokeless fuel. In our
opinion, it may not be difficult to find out, having regard to
the technologies used therein as regards the ratio of the
input vis-Ã -vis the output, with a balance and 10% margin.
On the basis of such finding alone, apart from the
requirements of five years, supply should form the basis of
MPQ. We may, however, hasten to add that the Central
Government in collaboration with the coal companies would
be at liberty to evolve a policy which would meet the
requirements of public interest vis-Ã -vis the interest of
consumers of coal. They would be entitled to lay down such
norms as may be found fit and proper. They would be
entitled to fix appropriate norms therefor. In the event, any
industrial unit is found to violate the norms, it should be
stringently dealt with.
193. However, discussions made hereinbefore should not be
taken to lay down a law that the Central Government and for
that matter the coal companies cannot change their policy
decision. They evidently can; but therefor there should be a
public interest as contradistinguished from a mere profit
motive. Any change in the policy decision for cogent and
valid reasons is acceptable in law; but such a change must
take place only when it is necessary, and upon undertaking
of an exercise of separating the genuine consumers of coal
from the rest. If the coal companies intend to take any
measure they may be free to do so. But the same must
satisfy the requirements of constitutional as also the
statutory schemes; even in relation to an existing scheme e.g.
Open Sales Schemes, indisputably the coal companies would
be at liberty to formulate the new policy which would meet
the changed situation. E-advertisement or e-tender would be
– 42 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
welcome but then therefor a greater transparency should be
maintained.
194.For the reasons aforementioned, Civil Appeals Nos.
2972 and 2975 of 2005 being devoid of any merits are
dismissed. Civil appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24034 of
2005 is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court is set aside. No separate order is
required to be passed on Civil Appeal No. 5547 of 2004
arising out of the judgment and order of the Calcutta High
Court as the said case would also be governed by this
judgment. All other appeals, writ petition and transferred
cases are disposed of with the aforementioned observations
and directions.‖
23. The issue of refund has been agitated in the case of S.J.
Coke Industries Private Limited & others Vrs. Central
Coalfields Limited & others (supra) after the judgment
having been rendered in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) by
filing writ petition before the Patna High Court. The same was
allowed by the learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court,
by passing the judgment in favour of the writ petitioner(s)
therein based upon the judgment rendered in the case of
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union
of India & Ors. (supra). The respondents-CCL preferred
intra-court appeal before the Division Bench wherein the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge was reversed,
thereby the matter travelled to the Hon‟ble Apex Court
wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to reverse
– 43 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
the judgment passed by Division Bench of the Patna High
Court and upheld the order passed by learned Single Bench
of Patna High Court. The said judgment has considered the
issue of delay and laches; the issue of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India and the issue that if anything is done in
violation of the law, consequence has to follow and they are
bound to return the money to the party from whom excess
amount has been realized. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraphs of the judgment is quoted as under:
“38. Keeping in view the stand taken by 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 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 known to CCL.
40. As a consequence, the appeals filed by Central
Coalfields Ltd. — CA arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 14430,
15985, 15986, 15987, 15989, 15990 and 15991 of 2013
stand dismissed.
41. 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 against their claim in question, refund the
balance amount along with interests @ 6% to the
respective writ petitioners (companies). Let this be
done within three months.‖
24. The writ petitioners herein earlier preferred writ
petitions seeking a direction of refund of the amount in the
light of the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the
– 44 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) and S.J.Coke Industries
Private Limited & others Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited
& others (supra). The respondents were called upon. The
order has been passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the backdrop of the fact that the claim of the
petitioners have been rejected vide order dated 09.09.2009
but the learned Single Judge while considering the judgment
rendered in the case of S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited
& others Vrs. Central Coalfields Limited & others (supra)
has granted liberty to the writ petitioners to make
representation(s) before the respondent-BCCL for its
consideration with a direction to the General Manager (S &
M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad to take decision on
the claim of the writ petitioner within a specific period and if
the one or others petitioners are found to be admissible any
amount, the said amount be refunded in their favour. For
ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment
rendered in W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2012 is quoted as under:
2. Petitioners in all these writ petitions have a claim for
refund of the amounts along with interest collected in excess
of notified price during the prevalence of e-auction scheme of
the Coal India Limited, which was held to be illegal and
constitutionally invalid in view of the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India (P) Ltd. Vrs. Union of India reported in (2007) 2
SCC 640. Petitioners in W.P.C. Nos. 4562 of 2012, 4543 of
– 45 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
2012, 4588 of 2012 approached this Court with the said
prayer claiming refund @ 12% of the excess amount collected
by the respondent- Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
Petitioner in W.P.C. No. 422 of 2016 had approached this
Court earlier in 2009 with the same prayer also seeking
quashing of the order dated 2.9.2009 of the General
Manager, B.C.C.L where under its representation for refund
of the amounts was rejected. This writ petitioner chose to
withdraw the said writ petition after it has preferred the
instant writ petition being W.P.C No. 422 of 2016 seeking
refund of the amount collected in excess relying upon the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited & others Vrs.
Central Coalfields Limited & others reported in (2015) 8
SCC 72. It also sought quashing of the order of rejection of
its representation dated 2.9.2009.
5. The question of refund raised in by the present petitioners
are in the nature of those raised by other parties in the case
which have been decided by the Apex Court in the case of
S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited & others (supra),
though in relation to other Coal Companies like Central
Coalfields Ltd and Eastern Coalfields Limited referred to
herein above. Para 24 to 36 of the judgment rendered in the
case S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited & others
(supra) contain opinion of the Apex Court and the ratio
rendered.
6. Having considered the relevant aspects of the pleadings
on behalf of the parties as noticed herein above, it would
only be proper that the respondent examine the cases of
individual petitioners in respect of their claim for refund
along with interest in the light of the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of S.J.Coke Industries Private
Limited & others (supra) and come to an informed decision
on individual claims of each of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.C. No. 422
of 2016 submits that in the light of what have been observed
herein above, consideration of claim of refund of the instant
– 46 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
petitioner can also be done in the light of the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra).
In that event the order of rejection dated 2.9.2009
would not came in the way of the respondents in taking a
fresh decision in the matter upon examination of relevant
attendant facts and in accordance with law keeping in view
the judgment rendered in the case of S.J.Coke Industries
Private Limited & others (supra).
7. Individual petitioners are therefore required to make their
representation together with all necessary facts and
documents before the competent authority under the
respondent- BCCL / the General Manager (S & M), Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad. Let such consideration be
made in accordance with law by the respondents within a
reasonable time preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of this order along with representations filed on
behalf individual petitioners.
8. Needless to say that upon such consideration, if claim of
the individual petitioners are found admissible, the amount
in question be refunded along with interest @ 6% as per the
ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra).”
25. With the liberty aforesaid the writ petitioners preferred
individual representation(s) for its consideration before the
respondent-BCCL but the same was rejected on the ground
that they were not party before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the
any of the cases heard analogously with Ashoka Smokeless
Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra).
26. It needs to refer herein that based upon the order
passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2012
– 47 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
and batch matters the representation was filed by the writ
petitioners and considered by the BCCL and thereupon
impugned orders were passed, but the order passed by the
learned Single Judge has never been challenged before the
higher forum/court rather it is admitted fact the respondent-
BCCL has acted upon the judgment/order passed by learned
Single Judge, based the representations so filed by the writ
petitioners in pursuance to the order passed by the learned
Single Judge however had been rejected on the ground that
the writ petitioners were not party in the case of Ashoka
Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India
& Ors. (supra).
27. The purport of the order passed by learned Single Judge
in exercise of power conferred to this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India reflects that the order of
command has been passed upon the respondent-BCCL to
decide the claim of one or the other writ petitioners even in a
case where the claim would be rejected in the light of
judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union
of India & Ors. (supra) and S.J.Coke Industries Private
Limited & others (supra).
28. The command, by way of mandamus, once is given by
the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article
– 48 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
226 of the Constitution of India then the respondents
concerned, who have been commanded to act upon, cannot
deviate from the said order by taking another ground of not
being the party before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. If that was the
consideration then it was the bounden duty of the
respondent-BCCL to assail the order passed by learned Single
Judge before the higher forum but instead of doing so they
have acted upon the said command passed by the writ Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and took the
ground of not being party before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
29. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent-BCCL cannot
be appreciated since the manner in which order has been
passed by the respondent-BCCL and the same will be said to
be sitting upon the direction passed by the High Court in
exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
30. The law is well settled that it is not available for the
executive authority to sit upon the order passed by the Court
without assailing the same. Reference, in this regard be made
to the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India &
Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, the
relevant paragraph of which is quoted as under:
– 49 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
54. In Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa [(2001) 1 SCC
582] this Court deprecated the practice of interfering by the
executive without challenging the court order before the
superior forum, and observed as under : (SCC p. 585, para 7)
―7. … The executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus,
Section 6(1) is a travesty of the rule of law which is
one of the basic structures of the Constitution. The
legislature may, in certain cases, overrule or nullify a
judicial or executive decision by enacting an
appropriate legislation. However, without enacting an
appropriate legislation, the executive or the legislature
cannot set at naught a judicial order. The executive
cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise a judicial
order. The Appellate Tribunal consisting of experts
decides matters quasi-judicially. A Secretary and/or
Minister cannot sit in appeal or revision over those
decisions. At the highest, the Government may apply
to the Tribunal itself for a review, if circumstances so
warrant. But the Government would be bound by the
ultimate decision of the Tribunal.‖
31. Further, the law is well settled as has been held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that once the Court of law decides an
issue, it is not available for the administrative authority to
take contrary decision by sitting upon over the order passed
by such Court. If the order passed by the Court of law has
not been complied with, the only remedy available to the
administrative authority to challenge the same either by filing
a review before the same court or S.L.P. before the Hon’ble
Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, as
has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union
– 50 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
of India Vrs. K.M. Shankarappa, reported in (2001) 1 SCC
582, wherein, at paragraph-7, it has been held as under:-
“7. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned
counsel. The Government has chosen to establish a quasi-
judicial body which has been given the powers, inter alia, to
decide the effect of the film on the public. Once a quasi-
judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal, consisting of a
retired Judge of a High Court or a person qualified to be a
Judge of a High Court and other experts in the field, gives its
decision that decision would be final and binding so far as
the executive and the Government is concerned. To permit
the executive to review and/or revise that decision would
amount to interference with the exercise of judicial functions
by a quasi-judicial Board. It would amount to subjecting the
decision of a quasi-judicial body to the scrutiny of the
executive. Under our Constitution the position is reverse. The
executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus, Section 6(1) is a
travesty of the rule of law which is one of the basic
structures of the Constitution. The legislature may, in certain
cases, overrule or nullify a judicial or executive decision by
enacting an appropriate legislation. However, without
enacting an appropriate legislation, the executive or the
legislature cannot set at naught a judicial order. The
executive cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise
a judicial order. The Appellate Tribunal consisting of experts
decides matters quasi-judicially. A Secretary and/or Minister
cannot sit in appeal or revision over those decisions. At the
highest, the Government may apply to the Tribunal itself for
a review, if circumstances so warrant. But the Government
would be bound by the ultimate decision of the Tribunal.”
32. Herein, similar is the situation wherein the respondent-
BCCL, without challenging the order passed by learned Single
Judge, acted upon the same but has not decided the claim of
the litigants as per specific command made by this Court in
– 51 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to decide the issue, which cannot be
said to be permissible exercise undertaken by the BCCL
rather according to our considered view it is totally
impermissible.
33. Therefore, the question of being not a party before the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra)
cannot be allowed to be taken by the respondent-BCCL once
the learned Single Judge has passed the order by making
reference of order passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) as well as S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra).
34.We, on consideration of the judgment passed by Hon‟ble
Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India
(P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. as well as
S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited & others (supra),
has found that the very scheme under which the amount
has been deposited has been quashed and set aside, which
is having binding effect under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The issue of binding effect under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India has taken into
consideration in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.
– 52 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. etc. [AIR 1989 SC 1933] at
paragraph 9 held as under:
9. The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of
promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions,
and enables an organic development of the law, besides
providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence
of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And,
therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of
legal principle in the decisions of a court.
35.Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of South Central
Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees Union v. B.
Yashodabai [(2015) 2 SCC 727] at paragraph 15 held as under:
“15. If the view taken by the High Court is accepted, in our
opinion, there would be total chaos in this country because in
that case there would be no finality to any order passed by
this Court. When a higher court has rendered a particular
decision, the said decision must be followed by a
subordinate or lower court unless it is distinguished or
overruled or set aside. The High Court had considered
several provisions which, in its opinion, had not been
considered or argued before this Court when CA No. 4343 of
1988 was decided [South Central Railway Employees Coop.
Credit Society Employees’ Union v. Registrar of Coop.
Societies, (1998) 2 SCC 580 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 703] . If the
litigants or lawyers are permitted to argue that something
what was correct, but was not argued earlier before the
higher court and on that ground if the courts below are
permitted to take a different view in a matter, possibly the
entire law in relation to the precedents and ratio decidendi
will have to be rewritten and, in our opinion, that cannot be
done. Moreover, by not following the law laid down by this
Court, the High Court or the subordinate courts would also
be violating the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of
India.‖
– 53 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
36. Even in the similar circumstances, identical matter has
gone to the Hon‟ble Apex Court. The learned Single Judge has
passed order holding the litigant concerned entitled for the
refund but the said judgment has been reversed by the
Division Bench against which Special Leave Petition was filed
before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court while deciding the issue in the case of S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra) wherein the
plea was taken that the claim of the litigants concerned is not
worth to be considered on the principle of delay and laches,
since the such claim has been adjudicated much after the
judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union
of India & Ors. (supra) but the Hon‟ble Apex Court while
considering the issue of delay and laches, the plea which was
taken by the respondent-CIL and by deciding the issue of
delay and laches the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to
hold that the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court shall be
binding on all Court within the territory of India under Article
141 of the Constitution of India and once the Hon‟ble Apex
Court has decided the issue in the case of Eastern
Coalfileds Limited vs. Tetulia Coke Plant Private Limited
& Ors (2011) 14 SCC 624, the ratio decided in the said case
has been held to be binding on all courts in the country and
– 54 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
will have binding effect to while deciding the lis of the same
nature. For ready reference, paragraph 27 and 28 of the
judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of
S.J.Coke Industries Private Limited & others (supra) is
quoted as under:
“27. 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 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012)
4 SCC (Civ) 981] on 10-8-2011 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, 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. It was more so because controversy involved in both
the cases was similar in nature. As observed supra, both the
courts failed to do so thereby rendering the impugned
decision bad in law.
28. When we peruse the decision of Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981] , we find
no factual distinction between the facts of the case in hand
and the one involved in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [(2011) 14
SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981] It is apposite to quote
paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment in Eastern
Coalfields [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981]
which will show the similarity in these two cases : (SCC pp.
627-28)
―9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
legality of the Scheme of e-auction was 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,
– 55 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
the 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 Smokeless [(2007) 2 SCC 640] . 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 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 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 Coal India (P)
Ltd. [(2007) 2 SCC 640] , the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein which was pending was also considered
and the same was allowed following the decision of this
Court in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. [(2007) 2 SCC
640] 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 said
decision this Court directed the coal companies to refund the
price of the coal paid in excess of the notified price under the
E-auction Scheme. Certain guidelines were also laid down as
to how such payments are to be made. The said decision of
the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench
of the High Court by 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 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
– 56 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
has not disposed of only an interim prayer but has 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
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
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 decision of Ashoka
Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. [(2007) 2 SCC 640] would be
restricted only to those cases which 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 that
this Court in no uncertain terms held in Eastern Coalfields
case [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981] that
benefit of decision rendered in Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India [(2007) 2 SCC 640] is not confined to those who were
parties to those cases but it would be granted to all
regardless 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
Eastern Coalfields Ltd.‖.
37. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further in the case of S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra) at paragraphs
29, 30, 31, 32 and 34 had held that once the law has been
laid down there cannot be any justification to deny the
benefit of law merely on the ground of delay.
– 57 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
“29. Likewise, this Court while expressly dealing with the
question of undue enrichment raised by Eastern Coalfields
repelled the said submission finding no merit therein in para
12 in the following words : (Eastern Coalfields case [(2011)
14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981] , SCC p. 628)
―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. 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 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 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 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, without taking a plea of unjust enrichment either
in the writ petition or before this Court, we are not 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.‖
30. It is, therefore, clear that the express challenge laid
before this Court in Eastern Coalfields case [(2011) 14 SCC
624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981] 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, another coal company alike Eastern Coal Co. can now
be allowed to raise the same plea again in these proceedings
only because this matter arises from another High Court. In
other words, we are of the considered opinion that this Court
having rejected the issue of undue enrichment in Eastern
Coalfields [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981]
while dealing with the similar controversy, the same issue is
– 58 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
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.
31. 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 the following words : (Eastern
Coalfields case [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 981]
, SCC p. 628)
―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 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 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.‖
32. In the light of the aforesaid law laid down, we find no
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. case [Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. Bhagwati Coke Industries (P) Ltd., SLP (C)
No. 17406 of 2010, order dated 19-7-2010 (SC)] and Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. case [(2011) 14 SCC 624 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ)
981] .
34. 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 laches. The Single
Judge, 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.‖
38. There is no dispute that the principle of delay and
laches is to apply in the proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India but once the law has been laid down by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court it binds the parties under Article 141
– 59 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
of the Constitution of India then it is bounden duty to take
informed decision with respect to all identically placed litigant
concerned on the principle that all persons similarly situated
should be treated similarly and only because one person has
approached the Court that would not mean that similarly
situated person should be treated differently. Reference in
this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava &
Ors. [(2015) 1 SCC 347], wherein at paragraph 22.2 and 22.3,
it has been held as under:
“22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that
the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence,
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself
extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such
a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation
and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C.
Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in
– 60 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue
to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from
the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get
the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to
satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and
delays or acquiescence.‖
39. So far as the principle of delay and laches are
concerned, the question of decision which is to be taken is
that once the law has been laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India then it is
the bounden duty of the respondent concerned to first take
decision on the basis of law already laid down and if such
decision is being taken then it will be said to be incorrect
approach of the concerned respondent and for that they
cannot be allowed to taken the ground of delay and laches on
the principle that wrong doers cannot be allowed to take
advantage of its own wrong, the same has been discussed by
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad
Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 447,
wherein at paragraphs-14, 15 and 16, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed as under:-
―14. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the
learned counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court in
Mrutunjay Pani v. Narmada Bala Sasmal [AIR 1961 SC 1353]
wherein it was held by this Court that where an obligation is
cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he
cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is
based on the Latin maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo
– 61 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
habere debet (no party can take undue advantage of his own
wrong).
15. … This Court (at SCC p. 142, para 28) referred to Broom’s
Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 191 wherein it was stated: ―It is a
maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall
take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is
based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of
law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from
every branch of legal procedure.‖ 16. It is settled principle of
law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair
advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation
of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from
being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he
has occasioned. To put it differently, ―a wrongdoer ought not to
be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong‖.‖
40. Further, in Advanta India Limited vs. B. N. Shivanna
and Anr., (2018) 14 SCC 666, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
been pleased to observe at para-20 which reads as under:-
―20. After going through the record, we find that the BCI has
shown undue indulgence to the respondent by allowing him to
take advantage of his own wrong, in the guise of exercising its
review power. It is a case of nullus commodum capere potest
de injuria sua propria meaning thereby that a party cannot
take advantage of its own wrong. This maxim is explained in
Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank in the following manner:
(SCC p. 217, para 66) ―66. The maxim nullus commodum
capere potest de injuria sua propria has a clear mandate of law
that, a person who by manipulation of a process frustrates the
legal rights of others, should not be permitted to take
advantage of his wrong or manipulations.‖
41. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case
wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed
order for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioners and
if they are found to be eligible the amount has been directed
– 62 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
to be refunded; meaning thereby, the purport of the order
passed by learned Single Judge is that a decision regarding
claim on merit of one or the other petitioners was required to
be taken but the impugned order does not reflect any said to
be taken on merit rather the claim has been rejected merely
on the ground that the writ petitioners were not party to the
proceeding before the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
42. The issue of party to the proceeding has been taken care
of by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra)/ Ashoka
Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vrs. Union of India
& Ors. (supra) the relevant paragraph of which has been
referred above and in view of judgment passed in the said
case, the approach which has been taken by the respondent-
BCCL, a public functionary cannot be said to be proper if the
plea of the respondent-BCCL, will be accepted otherwise each
and every litigant, said to be identically placed will have to
come to the Court and for the purpose of consideration for
claim that cannot be acceptable in view of principle laid down
that identically placed persons are to be treated equally.
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in
the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava,[
(2015) 1 SCC 347] wherein at paragraph 22.1, it has been
held as under:
– 63 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
“22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and
would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This
principle needs to be applied in service matters more
emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons
should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would
be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not
approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated
differently.
43. Further, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, [(2006) 2 SCC 747] has been
pleased to hold as under: :
“29. ——Only because one person has approached the court
that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be
treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the
question of seniority should be governed by the rules. -―
44. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of
the view that the impugned orders since is not in consonance
with the order passed by the writ Court in earlier round of
litigation, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set
aside.
45. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed
and set aside.
46. The matter is remitted before the General Manager (S &
M), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad for consideration
of the cases of the one or other writ petitioners afresh on
merit in the touchstone of order passed by Hon‟ble Apex
– 64 –
( 2025:JHHC:12830-DB )
Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd.
& Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and S.J.Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra) within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of
copy of this order.
47. It is made clear that if the authority comes to the
conclusion that the claims of the writ petitioners are genuine
then the consequential amount as per the ratio laid down in
the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Ors.
Vrs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and S.J. Coke
Industries Private Limited & others (supra) be refunded
within a period of two months thereafter.
48. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the
writ petition stands disposed of.
49. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands dispose
of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Alankar/
A.F.R
- 65 -
