Calcutta High Court
Oriental Ceramics & Refractories & Ors vs Coal India Ltd on 16 September, 2015
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WP No. 2067 of 2005
GA No. 2091 of 2008
ORIENTAL CERAMICS & REFRACTORIES & ORS.
Versus
COAL INDIA LTD.
WP No. 2068 of 2005
GA No. 2093 of 2008
SOMAL PIPES PVT. LTD.
Versus
COAL INDIA LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 16th September, 2015.
Appearance:-
Mr. B.N. Mishra,
Mr. Sakya Sen,
Ms. Krishna Mullick, Advs.
...for the petitioners in W.P
no. 2067 of 2005.
Mr. Siddhartha Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swaraj Shaw, Adv.
Ms. Suruchi Khunteta, Adv.
...for the petitioner in W.P no.
2068 of 2005.
Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Mondal, Adv.
...for respondent no. 5.
Mr. Alok Banerjee, Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Mr. Partha Basu, Mr. Nikhil Kr. Roy, Mr. Pradipta Bose, Advs.
...for respondent nos. 6 & 7.
2The Court:-Mr. Sen, learned Advocate and Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing respectively on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petitions listed as item nos. 7 & 8 in the day's list have relied upon two decisions delivered by the Supreme Court. The first is in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Tetulia Coke Plant (P) Ltd. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 624 and in the case of S.J. Cook Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 3399-3400 of 2015 with several other Civil Appeals. It is the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the Supreme Court, particularly in S. J. Cook Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had held that the benefits of its earlier decision rendered in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2007) 2 SCC 640 are not confined to those who were the parties to those cases, but it would be to all regardless of the fact whether they were parties to the case or not. In that case similar question arising out of the writ petitions filed on 10th August, 2010 and 7th September, 2010 was considered and dealt with by the Supreme Court while granting relief of refund pursuant to the decision in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. (supra). Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the writ petitioner's claims for refund commencing from 24th April, 2005 up to 23rd February, 2006 be directed to be paid by the respondent authorities.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand had submitted scheme of e-auction was set aside in Ashoka Smokeless Coal 3 India (P) Ltd. (supra) but there was no finding or direction in that decision regarding contracts concluded under the said scheme prior to the challenge, warranting refund. It was his submission the refund was confined to monies paid pursuant to the interim order made in that case. He further relied on the decision reported in the case of Harendra Nath Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. delivered by a Division Bench of this Court and reported in 2007(3) CHN 34 ( paragraphs 18 to 20 ) for the proposition of law that after a contract is completed, the Court cannot reopen the same unless the Court finds the contract is void or voidable and it has affected the parties.
The matter needs to be heard further. Let the writ petitions be listed on 1st October, 2015.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) nm/sp2