JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the entire certificate proceeding including the demand notice dated 7th February, 2003 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Bihar & Orissa (Public Demand) Recovery Act, 1914 (for short P.D.R. Act) in connection with Certificate Case No. 17/02-03 as was pending before the Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad and to command the respondents not to take any coercive steps against it or its employees in connection with the aforesaid certificate case No. 17/02-03. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Certificate Officer passed final order in Certificate Case No. 17/02-03, as contained in Memo No. 204 dated 7th March, 2003, whereby and whereunder, the objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected and petitioner has been directed to pay the certificate amount by 13th March. 2003. The aforesaid final order dated 7th March, 2003 has also been challenged by the petitioner by tiling a petition (LA. No. 524/2003) for amendment of prayer. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act engaged in manufacturing Steel and Irons, as such holds several Coalmines by way of ownership/lease. The Coalmines of petitioner are situated within the district of Dhanbad in Jharkhand, as also in adjacent State of West Bengal. Chasnala Colliery and Jitpur Colliery are two captive Coalmines which fall within the State of Jharkhand. The coal extracted by the petitioner from the aforesaid two captive Coalmines, after washing, are sent to its Steel Plant at Burnpur in the district of Burdwan, West Bengal where it produces Iron and Steel. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is liable to pay royalty under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, on the coal extracted and removed/consumed by the petitioner. Under Rule 64(A) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the State Government is empowered to charge 24% interest on the dues of royalty, if the same is not paid within sixty days from the date fixed for payment by the State Government. The petitioner had been paying royalty as per law upto February, 2002, but abruptly stopped making payment from March, 2002. The amount of royalty was calculated to Rs. 3,87,94,065/- for the period March, 2002 to November, 2002 and the petitioner Company was served with notice by the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner had been paying royalty as per law upto February, 2002, but abruptly stopped making payment from March, 2002. The amount of royalty was calculated to Rs. 3,87,94,065/- for the period March, 2002 to November, 2002 and the petitioner Company was served with notice by the State of Jharkhand. But the royalty amount with interest which came to Rs. 4,49,45,439/- having not paid, the Certificate Case No. 17/02-03 was initiated at the instance of the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, State of Jharkhand. 4. The petitioner had not disputed the certificate amount for recovery of royalty with interest, but it filed objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act on 27th February, 2003 and requested for suspension of the certificate proceeding on the ground that the petitioner Company has been declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 (for short S.I.C.A. 1985). However, the certificate . proceeding having not suspended, this writ petition was preferred. 5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Company has been declared siek by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR) vide its proceeding dated 17th August, 1994, as per S.I.C.A. 1985. It being a Sick Industrial Company, within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the S.I.C.A., 1985, as the scheme under Section 18 of S.I.C.A., 1985 is under formulation, the Certificate Proceeding, in question, distress or the like against any of the properties of the petitioners Company cannot proceed and should remain under suspension, as per Section 22 of S.I.C.A., 1985. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 69 . It was further submitted that the respondents State of Jharkhand may approach the B.I.F.R. and may realize the certificate amount with their consent in terms with Section 22 of S.I.C.A., 1985. It was also submitted that the issue whether the certificate amount can be recovered through the certificate proceeding or not will depend on the scheme as may be sanctioned. 6. Learned Advocate General, Jharkhand appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand while accepted that the petitioner Company has been declared sick by B.I.F.R. in its meeting held on 17th August, 1994, submitted that there is no bar to recover the admitted royalty with interest due for the period subsequent to the date of declaration sick. 6. Learned Advocate General, Jharkhand appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand while accepted that the petitioner Company has been declared sick by B.I.F.R. in its meeting held on 17th August, 1994, submitted that there is no bar to recover the admitted royalty with interest due for the period subsequent to the date of declaration sick. In the certificate case, the period of recovery of royalty being March, 2002 to November, 2002, according to the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner cannot claim any protection under Section 22 of S.I.C.A., 1985. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of Dy. Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals, reported in (1997) 10 SCC 649 . 7. For determination of the issue, it is relevant to discuss the relevant provisions of S.I.C.A., 1985. On a reference under Section 15, the B.I.F.R. is required to make enquiry under Section 16 of the S.I.C.A., 1985. Thereafter, if the B.I.F.R., is satisfied that a Company has become a Sick Industrial Company, may pass suitable orders under Section 17 of the said Act. After an order is made under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 in relation to any Sick Industrial Company, the operating agency is required to prepare a scheme with respect to the Company, whereinafter, the B.I.F.R. with such modification, as it may deem fit, can sanction the Scheme as per Section 18. As per Section 22 of the Act, 1985 all the legal proceedings, contracts, etc. are to remain suspended from the stage of Section 16, as quoted below : "22. As per Section 22 of the Act, 1985 all the legal proceedings, contracts, etc. are to remain suspended from the stage of Section 16, as quoted below : "22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.--(1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under Section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation of consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under Section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceeding for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress, or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority." 8. In the case of Corromandal Pharmaceuticals, (supra), the assessee Company was declared a Sick Industrial Company under SICA, 1985 by the B.I.F.R. In exercise of its power under Sections 18(4) and 19(3} of the S.I.C.A., 1985, after obtaining the consent of the Financial Institutions concerned, the B.I.F.R. sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the assessee Company w.e.f. 19th November, 1990. The assessee company was assessed to Sales Tax for subsequent assessment Years 1992-93 and 1993-94, but despite the opportunity, the assessee Company defaulted to pay assessed tax. In the said case also, the assessee Company raised objection of recovery on the ground that the recovery proceedings were barred by Section 22(1) of S.I.C.A., 1985. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the recovery proceeding related to the period after the sanctioned scheme, The legal bar or embargo under Section 22 of the Act could only be in respect of the Sales Tax dues included in a sanctioned scheme and not for the subsequent period. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the recovery proceeding related to the period after the sanctioned scheme, The legal bar or embargo under Section 22 of the Act could only be in respect of the Sales Tax dues included in a sanctioned scheme and not for the subsequent period. The Supreme Court while upheld the contentions of the Revenue, held as follows : "........So, we are of the view that though the language of Section 22 of the Act is of wide import regarding suspension of legal proceedings from the moment an inquiry is started, till after the implementation of the scheme or the disposal of an appeal under Section 25 of the Act, it will be reasonable to hold that the bar or embargo envisaged in Section 22(1) of the Act can apply only to such of those dues reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme. Such amounts, like sales tax, etc., which the sick industrial company is enabled to collect after the date of the sanctioned scheme legitimately belonging to the Revenue, cannot be and could not have been intended to be covered within Section 22 of the Act. Any other construction will be unreasonable and unfair and will lead to a state of affairs enabling the sick industrial unit to collect amount due to the Revenue and withhold it indefinitely and unreasonably. Such a construction which is unfair, unreasonable and against the spirit of the statute in a business sense, should be avoided." 9. The case of Tata Davy Ltd., (supra), as referred by the counsel for the petitioner was different. In that case, the appellant company was declared a Sick Company within the meaning of S.I.C.A.. 1985, that means, after 1985. In the said case, the Revenue intended to recover Sales Tax for the assessment year 1983-84 and 1984-85, i.e., the period prior to the date the Company was declared as a Sick Company. In this background, the Supreme Court observed that the reference to Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and held that the revenue can not recover the arrears of Sales Tax without the consent of the B.I.F.R. 10. In the present case, the petitioner Company has been declared sick under Section 17(3) of the S.I.C.A., 1985 in the meeting of B.I.F.R. dated 17th August, 1994. In this background, the Supreme Court observed that the reference to Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and held that the revenue can not recover the arrears of Sales Tax without the consent of the B.I.F.R. 10. In the present case, the petitioner Company has been declared sick under Section 17(3) of the S.I.C.A., 1985 in the meeting of B.I.F.R. dated 17th August, 1994. The Scheme is under preparation under Section 18 of S.I.C.A. That means, enquiry under Section 16 was made and report must have been submitted prior to 17th August, 1994. In this background. It cannot be presumed that the scheme includes the dues reckoned between March, 2002 to November. 2002, including the royalty and interest payable by petitioner. 11. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any protection under Section 22 of S.I.C.A., 1985 in respect to royalty and interest payable by it for the period March, 2002 to November, 2002 nor such relief can be granted. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking, is given opportunity to pay back the rest of certificate amount, after adjustment of the amount, already paid, in two equal monthly instalments i.e. within two months. In such case, the respondents will not take any coercive steps against the petitioner or its employees. 12. The writ petition is dismissed, but with aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.