1 2025:CGHC:52172-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5150 of 2025 Bihar Sponge Iron Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Umesh Nagar, Chandil, Saraikela, Kharsawan, Jharkhand Through Its Director Mr. Anirudh Kumar Modi, S/o Rakesh Kumar Modi, Aged 48 Years, R/o 552, 9th Floor, Tower-3, Mount Kailash, East Of Kailash, Sant Nagar, South Delhi, Delhi. Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Government Of India, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi. 2 - Coal India Limited, Through Its Chief General Manager, Coal Bhawan, Premises No. 4 Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Action Area- 1 A, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata (West Bengal). 3 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Central Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Cutuhery Road, Ranchi Jharkhand. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Anu Mishra For UOI : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.27 18:06:28 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 27/10/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned penalty bill dated 15/12/2011 (ANNEXURE P/ 2) signed on 22/12/2011 bearing No. SECL/KOL/PL/2011- 12/0012 passed by respondent No.3 and the letter dated 03/01/2012 (ANNEXURE P/3) bearing No.SECL/KOL/5032 sent by the SECL to ICICI Bank and a copy of the same endorsed to the petitioner. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Respondent No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.2,15,28,208.95/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 19/06/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) bearing no. SECL/BSP/MNDS/KRAM./BSIL/H-399 passed by the Respondent No.3. 10.4. Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice..” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner entered into a Coal/Fuel Supply Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “FSA”) with respondent No.3 – South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) for 3 the supply of 1,21,500 MT of B & C grade coal per annum. Subsequently, as the petitioner company became a sick industrial unit, it was registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 07/12/2010 to respondent No.3/SECL seeking transfer of linkage from respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 /Central Coalfields Limited (CCL). The said request remained pending and was ultimately allowed vide order dated 09/12/2011. However, despite the said development, respondent No.3 issued a penalty bill amounting to ₹2,15,28,317/- towards compensation for short lifting of coal for the period from April 2011 to November 2011, and further, by letter dated 03/01/2012, invoked the bank guarantee to the tune of ₹1,25,49,827/-. According to the learned counsel, aggrieved by such action, the petitioner invoked Clause 15 of the FSA relating to settlement of disputes, but the said process did not reach its logical conclusion. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No.1065/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 05/03/2025, observing that there was a possibility of settlement between the parties and directing the General Manager (Marketing & Sales), SECL, Bilaspur, to initiate fresh proceedings under Clause 15 of the FSA for resolution of the dispute. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner, through its authorized representative, appeared before the General Manager (Marketing & Sales), SECL, Bilaspur, and submitted its case. However, without due consideration of the petitioner’s submissions on merits, the said authority disposed of the 4 matter by the order impugned by upholding the earlier action of SECL. 3. On the other hand, learned respondents counsel oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable as the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They would submit that after the order passed by this Court on 05/03/2025 in WPC No. 1065/2013, the authorities of the SECL considered the case of both the parties and observed that non-lifting of Grade-B coal for reason of higher price does not absolve the FSA holder from compliance of compensation clause and consequently disposed of the representation of the petitioner herein and the same has been duly been communicated to him. They would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the other documents appended with writ petition. 5. From bare perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is claiming refund of Rs. 2.15 Crores (approx.) from SECL with regard to no booking was done by the petitioner for the period from 01/04/2011 to 30/11/2011 and for the said purpose, the SECL raised the bill in terms of clause- 4.5.1 of the FSA. Thus, it appears that the matter involves dispute question of facts. 6. It is settled law that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it raises disputed question of facts. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 was dealing with the question of whether the High Court had made an error in entertaining a writ petition filed seeking compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution, which had allegedly been caused due to the negligence of the authorities. The Supreme Court in the said case observed as under: "6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the 6 deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995." (emphasis supplied) 8. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana and others, (2005) 10 SCC 1 wherein it observed as follows: "16. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question which arose for consideration was, can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award compensation for death caused due to electrocution on account of negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the ground that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Court held that it is the settled legal position that where 7 disputed questions of facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred due to negligence or due to act of God or of some third person could not be decided properly on the basis of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543] it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. The Court carved out exception to this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood that in every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 9. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under: "26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 10. Subsequently, in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. 8 Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads." 11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated: "82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, 9 which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit." (emphasis supplied) 12. A reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that it is well settled proposition of law that when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper. 13. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to release the amount of Rs. 2.15 Crores (approx.); is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner and in view of law 10 laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him under the law, including filing of a Civil Suit before the competent jurisdictional Civil Court, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri