Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Shankar Silicate & Chemical ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 24 April, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:12282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.3967 of 2009
------
M/s. Shankar Silicate & Chemical Industry, Village & P.O. Dandawal,
District Azamgarh (U.P.) through its sole proprietor Kosendra Kumar
Singh, son of Late Ram Karan Singh resident of Village & P.O.
Dandawal, Tahsil- Lalganj, P.S. Mahnazpur, District Azamgarh (U.P.)
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Coal, Shashtri
Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi
3. General Manager (S&M), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, District Ranchi
4. Project Manager, Sawang Washery, CCL, P.O. Sawang,
District Bokaro
5. Coal India Limited through its Chairman, 15 Park Street, Kolkata
.... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : M/s Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Kumar Rahul & Harshit Kumar, Advocates
For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
Mr. Shashank Kumar, AC to CGC
For the CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
------
Order No.12 / Dated : 24.04.2025
Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
I. Quashing the action of the respondents in denying /not
granting refund of excess price charged over and above the
notified price under e-auction system stood struck down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court or under an illegal and
unconstitutional interim policy;
II. Quashing and striking down with all consequences the
interim policy (as evident in Annexure - 2 & 2/1) declaring
the same to be arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational and
unconstitutional;
III. Directing the respondents to refund the excess amount to
2025:JHHC:12282
the petitioner, as has been paid by way of price of coal over
and above its notified price, under the illegal and
unconstitutional erstwhile e-auction system or interim
policy;
IV. Directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum
or at least 12% per annum over and above the said amount
of refund with effect from May, 2005;
V. Alternatively directing the respondents to adjust the
aforesaid excess amount paid by the petitioner for
supplying appropriate quantity of coal and release the same
within six months.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute that the petitioner being
engaged in business of manufacturing of Silicate for which it had been
purchasing coal as raw material from the respondent-Company.
3. Notified price of coal continued to remain in force till 20th
April, 2005 and thereafter, from May, 2005 to May, 2008 there was
increase and variations in the price when the e-auction was put in
place.
4. Since May, 2005, the system of price fixation by way of e-
auction was introduced in the subsidiaries of CIL including CCL under
which the consumers of coal were at liberty to purchase coal at a price
fixed by taking the average of price obtained by auction which was
called "weighted average price". This scheme was struck down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on 1st December, 2006 [(2007) 2 SCC 640].
5. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
does not press Relief No. (I), which was to strike down the interim
policy, with all consequences, and confines the prayer to excess
amount that the petitioner had to pay while participating in e-auction
scheme.
6. The petitioner's claim is for the loss suffered by participating in
e-auction from May, 2005 to December, 2006. Petitioner is aggrieved
for the excess charges which it had to pay from May, 2005 to
2025:JHHC:12282
December, 2006 when e-auction system was in place. The petitioner
for its redressal moved respondent-Company/CCL in Ashoka
Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. & Others Vs. Union of India &
Others, (2007) 2 SCC 640, an interim order was passed to protect
interest of the petitioners and to ensure that no permanent harm will
cause to them and to that effect uphold the challenge made by the
ଵ
petitioners for refund the enhanced price of 33ଷ% with interest @ 12%
per annum. This order attained finality after the final order passed in
this case by which e-auction scheme was struck down.
7. In pursuant of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the
petitioner moved the competent authority (CCL) for demanding refund
on 18.06.2008 and 06.03.2009 but without success. Hence, this writ
petition.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that
the issue whether the refund has to be made or not of the excess
amount, is no longer res-integra in view of ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Horra Coke Industries Vs. Central Coalfields
Limited & Others, Civil Appeal No.9615 of 2024. Similarly situated
parties have been given refund pursuant to the orders passed in
Eastern Coal Fields Limited Vs. Tetulia Coke Plant Private Limited
& Others {(2011) 14 SCC 624} and S.J. Coke Industries Private
Limited & Others Vs. Central Coalfields limited & Others, (2015) 8
SCC 72
9. As far as Relief No. (II) is concerned, it is squarely covered by
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Horra Coke Industries
(supra) and also Eastern Coal Fields Limited (supra) and S.J. Coke
Industries Private Limited (supra).
10. Sri Amit Kumar Das appearing on behalf of the respondents-
company has fairly conceded that in view of the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hora Coke in Civil Appeal Nos. 9615-
9616-9617 of 2024, so far as the relief regarding the price difference
suffered by the petitioner during e-auction scheme is concerned, the
2025:JHHC:12282
matter has been settled that the petitioner shall be entitled to the
difference amount with interest.
11. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides, the claim for difference amount in procurement of coal for the
period of May, 2005 to December, 2006 well merited and consequently
allowed in the light of the ratio laid down in Horra Coke Industries
(supra).
12. Under the circumstance, the petitioner is directed to submit a
fresh claim before the respondents-company for the said period which
shall be computed by the respondent company, and the difference
amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be paid within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the claim application. So far as
challenge to the interim policy and consequential relief of refund is
concerned, the petitioner will be at liberty to file a separate petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending, I.A., if any stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
