RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD THROUGH ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRERSENTATIVE SRI SHAILESH AWASTHI vs CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS

Court
Jharkhand High Court

2026:JHHC:31304





IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----

W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014
----

Rungta Irrigation Ltd., a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 101, Pragati
Tower, 26, Rajendra Place, PO and PS Prasad Nagar, District
New Delhi and also its Branch Office at Vikash Bhawan, Bariatu
Road, PS Lalpur, PO Ranchi, District-Ranchi, through its duly
authorized representative Sri Shailesh Awasthi, son of late D.S.
Awasthi, resident of Qr. No.1B/227, Kathara No.4, PO Kathara,
PS Gomia, District-Bokaro …… …. .... Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --


1.Central Coalfields Limited, Darghanga House, PO -Ranchi, PS-
Kotwali, District -Ranchi, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director
2. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, PO-Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi
3.General Manager (Sales), CMC, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, PO -Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi
4.Central Vigilance Officer, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, PO -Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi
-1- W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014

2026:JHHC:31304

5.General Manager (Vigilance), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, PO -Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali, District-
Ranchi
6.Senior Manager (MM), Samadhan Cell, Central Coalfields
Limited, Darbhanga House, PO -Ranchi University, PS-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi …… ….. .... Respondents
----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate
For the Respondents :- Mr. A.K. Das, Senior Advocate
Ms. Komal Tiwary, Advocate
----

8 /27.10.2026 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das, the
learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/Central Coalfields Limited [CCL].
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for quashing the action of the
respondents in refusing to accept the coal-value to the tune of
Rs.6,86,850/- as deposited by the petitioner by one of the bank
account which has not been provided at the time of
participation in e-auction. The prayer is also made for refund of
-2- W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014

2026:JHHC:31304

Rs.1,87,000/- which is the Earnest Money deposited which has
been forfeited.
3. After some argument, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that this matter is old one and now the coal price has also gone
forward and in view of that, he is not pressing the prayer no.1
and he has confined his prayer so far as prayer no.2 is
concerned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a Company and has participated in an e-auction
sale held on 31.07.2013 for sale of coal by Central Coalfields
Limited/ CCL. He also submits that the petitioner has duly
deposited Rs.10,01,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit with the
auctioning agency- M.S.T.C. Ltd. on 30.07.2013 for
participation. He next submits that the respondent/CCL has
come out with a Notice applicable with effect from 01.04.2011
by which it was made mandatory for all the customers to
declare the details of maximum two of their bank accounts in
the prescribed formats for the purpose of remitting coal value
and, in view of that, the two accounts have been demanded for
paying the coal value and the petitioner herein has provided
two accounts, one of State Bank of India [SBI] and another of
H.D.F.C Bank. He next submits that by way of Annexure-1, the
e-booking notice details are there. He next submits that so far
-3- W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014

2026:JHHC:31304

as an amount of Rs.27,55,726/- is concerned, that is transferred
through Allahabad Bank account and that has been accepted by
the respondent/CCL, however, Rs.6,86,850/- was sent through
Allahabad Bank Industrial Financial Credit (IFC) Account, the
said account was meant for the petitioner and the said amount
has not been accepted. He next submits that the Allahabad
Bank has also certified the same that the amount has been
transferred from the account of the I.F.C account. However, the
respondent/CCL has not accepted the said amount and
refunded the same and an amount of Rs.1,87,000/- has been
forfeited. He next submits that the respondent/ CCL has not lost
anything and there is no determination as to what loss has
been made, and in view of that, the respondent/ CCL is
required to refund the said amount of Rs.1,87,000/-. He also
submits that in the aforesaid background, even the penalty
cannot be imposed upon the petitioner and forfeiting the said
amount amounts to penalty upon the petitioner. He submits
that this aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Fateh Chand v. Balkrishan Das reported
in AIR 1963 SC 140 , Maya Devi v. Lalita Prasad reported
in AIR 2014 SC 1356 , Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi
Development Authority reported in (2015) 4 SCC 136 and
Maula Bux V. Union of India reported in (1969) 2 SCC
554. Referring the above judgments, he submits that the
-4- W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014

2026:JHHC:31304

respondent/ CCL has wrongly forfeited the said amount and in
view of that, appropriate direction may kindly be issued.
5. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent/Central Coalfields Limited [CCL]
opposed and submits that the petitioner has failed to transfer
the said amount by the two accounts provided by the petitioner
and in view of that, Rs.6,86,906/- has not been accepted and
since the clauses are there on forfeiting the amount, the said
amount has been forfeited. He relied in the case of Villayati
Ram Mittal private Limited v. Union of India and
Another reported in (2010) 10 SCC 532 as well as National
Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. Ashok Kumar
Singh and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 252 .
6. In view of above, it transpires that although the
petitioner has provided two of the bank accounts of SBI and
HDFC Bank respectively, however, an amount of Rs.27,55,726/-
was transferred through Allahabad Bank account and that has
been accepted by the respondent/CCL and Rs.6,86,850/- has
been transferred by the petitioner through Allahabad Bank,
however, that was through the Industrial Financial Credit (IFC)
Account and that account was meant for the petitioner and
further the two of the Certificates annexed as Annexure-5 series
fortify the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the said amount has been sent by Allahabad Bank to the
-5- W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014

2026:JHHC:31304

respondent/CCL.
7. In view of aforesaid background, the refund aspect
is required to be considered at the first hand by the
respondent/ CCL and as such, the petitioner is directed to
approach the respondent no.3/ General Manager (Sales), CMC,
Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi by way of
filing a fresh representation along with all the credentials which
has been annexed in the present writ petition within a period of
three weeks, and if such a petition is being filed by the
petitioner within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.3/
General Manager (Sales), CMC, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi is directed to take a decision in
accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within four
weeks further thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
instant writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1774 of 2014 is allowed
and disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 27.10.2026
SI/
Uploaded/ 30.10.2026

-6- W.P.(C) No. 1774 of 2014