ORDER 1. Mis Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and its officers (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") being aggrieved against the common order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench (as it f then was), have filed these appeals. By the impugned order the High Court has partly allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. As the writ petitions were clubbed and disposed of by the High Court by passing a common order, we propose to do the same and dispose of the appeals by passing a common order. Brief facts 2. By virtue of the Colliery Control Order framed under the Defence of India Rules, 1911 and continued in force under Section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act, the appellants were empowered to charge service charges which include cost of transportation and administration charges, on supply of coal from the stockyard. 3. The High Court while allowing the writ petition, filed by one Birendra h Kumar Sinha (CWJC No. 1336 of 1987), directed the appellants not to realise the service charges from the writ petitioner for supply of coal directly from the colliery. It, however, held that the appellants were entitled to charge a service charges in respect of the coal supplied from the stockyard. 4. The respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the appellants to refund the service charges illegally collected from the respondent-writ petitioners on the coal lifted by the appellants from the colliery of the appellants @ Rs 25 per tonne. 5. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in Birendra Kumar Sinha v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 1 in which it has been held that Bharat Coking Coal Limited was not justified in levying "service charges" on the coal lifted by the consumer from the pithead of the colliery as no service was rendered, the writ petitions were partly allowed, directing the appellants to refund the service charges on the bills which were annexed to the writ petitions. Special Leave Petition No. 9887 of 1988 filed by MIs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, the appellants herein, was dismissed on 31-8-1988 with the observation that the appellants were not justified in levying service charges as the coal had been collected by the respondent consumers from the pitheads and not from the stockyards. 6. Special Leave Petition No. 9887 of 1988 filed by MIs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, the appellants herein, was dismissed on 31-8-1988 with the observation that the appellants were not justified in levying service charges as the coal had been collected by the respondent consumers from the pitheads and not from the stockyards. 6. The question involved in the case was, whether the coal had been supplied to the respondents from the stockyards? If the answer is in the affirmative, the appellants were justified in collecting the service charges but, if the coal was supplied from the pitheads then the appellants would not be justified in levying the service charges as no service was being rendered by the appellants. 7. The High Court in the impugned judgment has referred to para 27 of the writ petition containing an averment of fact as to the place from where the coal was lifted. Para 27 reads as under: "27. That Respondent 1 is regularly charging the service charge at the rate of Rs 25 per tonne from the petitioner and the petitioner had paid the service charge at the rate of Rs 25 on many occasions for lifting coal from the colliery on the basis of delivery order and sale order. Copies of sale order and delivery order in favour of the petitioner charging Rs 25 per tonne as service charge for lifting coal from the colliery are being filed herewith and marked as Annexures 10 and 101 A to this application." 8. The respondents produced bills as Annexures 10 and 101 A in CWJC No. 2271 of 1990 (R), Annexure 10 in CWJC No. 2278 of 1990 (R) and Annexures 10 and 10/A in CWJC No. 55 of 1991(R), disclosing the dates on g which payment of service charges was made by the respondents for supply of coal from the colliery. 9. The High Court came to the conclusion that the averments made by the respondent-writ petitioners were vague inasmuch as they had failed to disclose as to whether the coal was lifted from the stockyards or colliery pits. 9. The High Court came to the conclusion that the averments made by the respondent-writ petitioners were vague inasmuch as they had failed to disclose as to whether the coal was lifted from the stockyards or colliery pits. In the absence of the details as to the lifting of the coal from the pitheads, a writ of mandamus could not be issued against the appellants, but since the respondents had produced the aforesaid four bills in which it was mentioned that the coal had been lifted from the colliery, the High Court gave a direction a to the appellants to refund the service charges mentioned in the bills, copies of which were filed as annexures referred to above, within a period of three months of the production of the certified copy of the judgment. 10. We agree with the High Court to the extent that averments made by the respondents are vague and lacking in particulars. They have failed to make a positive averment to the effect that they had lifted the coal from the pithead of the colliery and not from the stockyards. They have further failed to disclose as to how much service charges have been paid by them to the appellants. The only averment made in the writ petition by the writ petitioners _ the respondents herein, is that they had paid the service charges @ Rs 25 per tonne "on many occasions" for lifting the coal from the colliery. In support of the fact that the appellants had levied the service charges the respondents produced four bills referred to above. Perusal of the bills does not show as to from where the coal had been lifted i.e. from the pithead or from the stockyard. In the absence of the specific averment to the effect that the coal had been lifted from the pithead of the colliery or any other admitted fact showing that the coal had been lifted from the pithead, the High Court was not justified in ordering the refund of the service charges mentioned in the bills. Rule laid in Birendra Kumar Sinha easel because of lack of. particulars of the point from which the coal was picked up by the respondents, shall not be applicable in these cases. The High Court has erred in taking a view contrary to what we have said above. 11. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are accepted. Rule laid in Birendra Kumar Sinha easel because of lack of. particulars of the point from which the coal was picked up by the respondents, shall not be applicable in these cases. The High Court has erred in taking a view contrary to what we have said above. 11. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.