Judgment Choudhary S. N. Mishra, J. 1. In this case, the petitioner, Indian Iron and steel Company Limited which is a Govt company within the meaning of Section 617 of Indian Companies Act has filed this writ application for quashing of the demand notice dated 10-8-1982 by which the petitioner has been ordered to pay the Royalty and Cess to the tune of Rs 2,34,481.97 paise in terms of section 9 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, herein-after referred to as the Act and also the order passed by the revisional authority dated 7-1-1986 by which revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed copies of the notice and the order are made Annexure-2 and 6 respectively 2. Mr Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Govt. on the ground that since the minerals, in question has neither been consumer nor removed from the lease hold area and as such the petitioner is not liable to pay in terms of Sec.9 of the Mines and minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, royalty and cess. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the Minerals in question, has neither been removed nor consumed as it appears from the order passed by the revisional Authority itself In order to appreciate the submissions of Mr banerjee, it is relevant to quote Section 9 of the Act which reads as follows "the holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral" 3. Mr Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioners company is regularly paying the royalty and other mining dues in respect of the arrears, in question, to the State of Bihar and the petitioner in its monthly returns submitted before the respondent No 2 showing the discharge figure of Iron from Mining aforesaid on which the royalty is paid 4. The respondent No 2, namely, the District Mining Officer, Singhbhum, chaibasa has issued a notice vide memo no.1209 (M) dated 10-8-1982 to the petitioner Company demanding a sum of Rs.1,67,566 74 paise as the royalty of shortage of Iron Ore and also the Cess charged at certain percentage of the said royalty, total comes to Rs 2,34,481 97 paise, a copy of the said demand notification is made as Annexure-2 to this writ application as quoted above the petitioner company, thereafter filed a revision application in terms of Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) The said revision application filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by an order dated 7-1-1996 (Annexure-6) 5. Accordingly, Mr Banerjee, has challenged the demand including the order passed by the revisional authority namely the respondent No 4 on the ground that the alleged demand is not , maintainable under the statute which has been negatived by both the respondents, district Mining Officer as well as the Central Government in exercise of its power under Rule 54 of the Rules In this case the principal and in fact, the only submission of Mr Banerjee is that since the Minerals, in question admittedly having neither been consumed nor removed from the lease area, the petitioner company cannot be directed to pay the Royalty and Cess over the same In support of his contention Mr banerjee has relied upon one un-reported judgment of this Court m c WJ C No 1 of 1984 dated 7-8-1990 and the other of the Orissa High Court in O J C No 33 of 1989 In both the judgments it has been held that unless the Mineral is removed and/or consumed, no Royalty and Cess are payable under the provisions of the Act 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No 2, the District Mining Officer, inter aha stating therein that on verification admittedly the shortage of Ores were found and accordingly the petitioner is liable to pay Royalty over the same, the moment the Minerals is extracted from the mines In sum and substance of the stand taken by the respondents m this case is that liability to pay the Royalty under the provisions of the Act arises immediately the material is extracted from the seam irrespective of the fact that the said material is removed and / or consumed 7. Having regard to the rival con-tention, now the only question for determination m this case is as to whether petitioner/lessee is liable to pay the Royalty only on extraction of material from the seam or on removal and/or consumption of the same. As stated above, Mr Banerjee has relied upon the two unreported judgment which no doubt, supports his contention, yet if such interpretation of section 9 of the Act is given, following the ratio of the said two unreported judgments, will lead to an anomalous position and the State will not be able to realise the Royalty from the lessee Take for example the lessee if set up a establishment within the mining area which would consume the minerals extracted by the lessee and even than he will not be liable to pay the Royalty The true and correct interpretation of Sec.9 of the Act, in my view, held that mere extracting the minerals from the mines would satisfy the requirement of Section 9 of the Act The Royalty is almost like rent and compensation payable to the owner of the property by the lessee for exploitation of the mineral and accordingly i do not accept the contrary interpretation of Sec.9 of the Act sought to be added by Mr Banerjee which is rejected as such In my opinion, the ratio of the decision cited by Mr Banerjee has not led down a correct law in view of the subsequent unreported judgment of this Court in C W J C No 2477 of 1996 (R) disposed of on 15-5-1997 I am also supported by a Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of National coal Development Corporation ltd Petitioner V/s. State of Orissa and others, Opposite Parties reported in AIR 1976 Orissa 159 8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I reject the contention raised by Mr Banerjee for the petitioner and dismissed the writ application. No cost. Application Dismissed