Jharkhand HC Directs CCL To Decide Coal Buyer’s ₹1.87 Lakh EMD Refund Plea After Bank Proof Of ₹6.86 Lakh Transfer

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an immediate direction for refund of the forfeited ₹1,87,000, in light of its claim that the payment had been remitted to CCL and that no loss had been established.

The court held

The Court allowed and disposed of the writ petition without ordering an immediate refund.

It also directed

It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, with supporting credentials, to CCL’s General Manager (Sales), CMC, within three weeks; CCL was directed to decide the representation in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order within four weeks thereafter.

The petitioner’s prayer for acceptance of the coal payment was not pressed.

01Facts

Rungta Irrigation Ltd. participated in a CCL coal e-auction held on 31 July 2013 and deposited an earnest money deposit of ₹10,01,000 through MSTC Ltd.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

Although CCL had required customers to declare up to two bank accounts for remitting coal payments, the petitioner alleged that CCL accepted a payment of ₹27,55,726 made through its Allahabad Bank account but refused a further payment of ₹6,86,850 remitted through an Allahabad Bank Industrial Financial Credit account, and forfeited ₹1,87,000 of the earnest money.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–6

The petitioner initially sought, among other relief, acceptance of the coal payment, but did not press that prayer at the hearing and confined its claim to refund of the forfeited amount.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

It sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an immediate direction for refund of the forfeited ₹1,87,000, in light of its claim that the payment had been remitted to CCL and that no loss had been established.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4–5

ii.2. Whether the refund claim should first be considered by CCL on the material supporting the petitioner’s payment and account details.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the High Court considered the request for public-law relief.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The petitioner relied on Fateh Chand v. Balkrishan Das, AIR 1963 SC 140; Maya Devi v. Lalita Prasad, AIR 2014 SC 1356; Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 4 SCC 136; and Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554, concerning forfeiture and compensation.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4

CCL cited Villayati Ram Mittal Private Limited v. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 532, and National Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2015) 4 SCC 252.

p. 5 · ¶ 5

The Court did not decide the applicability of these authorities or set out a substantive rule governing forfeiture; it directed CCL to consider the refund claim and decide it in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner had supplied material, including bank certificates, supporting its assertion that the disputed amount had been sent to CCL through the Allahabad Bank account.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6

It did not determine whether the payment complied with CCL’s declared-account requirement or whether forfeiture was legally justified.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

Instead, it held that the refund aspect should first be considered by CCL on a fresh representation accompanied by the relevant credentials and documents.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

Thus, the Court left the merits of the refund claim open for administrative determination.

p. 6 · ¶ 7