2026:JHHC:10144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2359 of 2026 ------- M/s Satya Fuels Private Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act having its place of business at Mezukinni Chainpur, Daltonganj, Dist. Palamau through one of its Directors Jyotiresver Singh, Son of Shri Vyas Singh, aged about 54 years, resident of H-6, Argora Housing Colony, BM Rajpath, Argora Chowk, Argora, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (Sales & Marketing Department) through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi. P.O & P.S. Kotwali. District Ranchi. 2. The Coal India Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at 10, Netaji Subhash Road, P.O. Kolkata G.P.O., P.S. Munchipara, Kolkata-700001. 3. The General Manager (Sales & Marketing), Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited having its office at Darbhanga House. Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali. District Ranchi. … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate Mr. Sahibjot Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. S. Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate ------ 02/ 09.04.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the notification No.11070-184 dated 05.11.2014 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents had imposed additional/ ad-on price @ 960 per Metric ton as washery recovery charge for supply of raw coking coal from the petitioner and the similarly situated units. Further, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 04.06.2015 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, whereby the rate earlier fixed as Rs.960/- per metric ton has been reduced to Rs.753/- per metric ton. Further, the petitioner prayed for a declaration that the said recovery charge is illegal and the respondents are not entitled to realize the same, therefore, prayer has been made to refund the aforesaid amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Coalfields Limited being the subsidiary of Coal India Limited cannot impose the aforesaid charge without the sanction of the Coal India Limited. He submits that the amount which has been collected by the respondent in terms of the said notification needs to be refunded. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited submits that the petitioner in the year 2026 has challenged the price notification of the year 2014-15, which is impermissible. After long years and after accepting the said notification and making payment regularly for 14 years, now the petitioner has approached this Court with this plea, which cannot be entertained. He further submits that the ad-on price was related to Fuel Supply Agreement Consumers and now the policy of entering into Fuel Supply Agreement has been done away. Since the new Coal Distribution Policy has already taken effect from 2017 onwards wherein the E-auction scheme has been introduced, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is challenging the notification No.11070-184 dated 05.11.2014 as contained in Annexure-9 and the notification dated 04.06.2015 as contained in Annexure-10, wherein the ad- on price rate has been fixed. Admittedly, the petitioner in the year 2014-15 has accepted the same and went on paying the same. Now in the year 2026, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification. Once the petitioner accepted the notification of fixing the price of coal by adding an additional component, and went on paying the same for ten years, they cannot be allowed to challenge the same after ten years. 6. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has accepted the same with protest rather they voluntarily accepted the same and took benefit of lifting of coal on the same price. Once the petitioner accepted the notice and took benefit of the same and has lifted the coal, he cannot now be allowed to challenge the same. 7. Further, there is no reason for grant of refund to the petitioner for the money which he has already paid voluntarily after more than twelve years. This claim for refund can be said to be time barred. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 9th April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:10/04/2026 -2-