ORDER In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order, as contained in Memo No.2379/M dated 31.10.2006 issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder it has been held that the whole case of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. is based upon the demand note Memo No.572 dated 21.04.1992 which clearly mentions the period till 04.04.1991 only; as such no refund of cess amount aggregating to Rs.60,00,000/-is admissible in the light of the Cess and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 (16 of 1992) and Hon’ble High Court order dated 27.02.2006 as this amount does not pertain to the period of 5th April, 1991 onwards and also as per Hon’ble High Court Division Bench order dated 23.12.2003 in CWJC No.2943 of 1996(R )/ 2945 of 1996 (R ) /4714 of 1996 (R ). The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what authority the sum of Rs.1.20 crore paid by the petitioner towards Cess and royalty after 04.04.1991 has not yet been refunded. The petitioner further prays for a writ, order or direction from this Hon’ble Court commanding upon the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith pay to the petitioner the aforesaid sum of Rs.1.20 crore along with 18% interest thereon. 2. The facts, in brief, are stated as under:- The State of Bihar (as it then was) was charging cess and royalty in purported exercise of authority under Bengal Cess Act, 1880 which was extended and made applicable to the State of Bihar. Several ordinances and notifications were issued from time to time enhancing the rate of cess. There were similar provisions applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu for realizing the cess. The Constitutional validity of the same was challenged and the matter finally was heard before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a Constitution Bench in India Cement Limited and Others Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others” reported in (1990) 1 SCC page 12 held that royalty is a tax and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature to levy the same because Section 9 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation & Development) Act is a central Act which covered the field. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Cement Case(supra) was rendered on 25th October, 1989. Thereafter another judgment by three Hon’ble Judges was passed in Orissa Cement case reported in (1991) (Suppl.) 1 SCC page 430 and the judgment was delivered on 4.4.1991. 3. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court several writ petitions and representations were filed for refund before several High Courts and finally an ordinance was promulgated by the President of India on 5th February, 1992 known as Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Ordinance, 1992. By the said ordinance of 1992 cess collected up to 1991 was validated by enforcing the provision of validation up to 4th April, 1991. In pursuance of the said ordinance demands were made from different parties including TISCO and others. 4. TISCO preferred a writ petition challenging the demand and also raised the issue of legislative competence in promulgating the Cess and other Taxes of Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992. A Division Bench of Patna High Court, as it then was, in 1996 (1) PLJR 404 while upholding the validation Act, 1992 held that the taxes collected before 4th April, 1991 are not required to be refunded. The aforesaid decision along with other decisions including a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in (1996) 5 SCC page 670 (P. Kannadasan Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu) case came up for consideration before a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in District Mining Officer Vrs. Tata Iron Steel Company reported in (2001) 7 SCC 358 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the said Act validated the collection of levies already made up to 4th April, 1991 but did not authorise raising of levy and collection of cess or taxes beyond that period. The judgment of the Patna High Court was upheld. 5. A writ petition was also preferred by the petitioner herein being C.W.J.C. No.68 of 1993 (R ) before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court for similar relief. In the said case, an interim order was passed that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner for non-payment of cess on royalty. 5. A writ petition was also preferred by the petitioner herein being C.W.J.C. No.68 of 1993 (R ) before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court for similar relief. In the said case, an interim order was passed that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner for non-payment of cess on royalty. It appears from the letter dated th September, 1998 that in spite of interim order, on special request of the District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1.2 crores without prejudice to its right and under protest. The writ petition was taken up on 5th February, 1996 and by judgment passed on the said date, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition in terms with the decision in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Company (supra) and set aside the demand notice, whereby the petitioner was asked to pay the cess. Giving reference to the aforesaid order, the petitioner by his letter dated 19th September, 1998 requested to refund the amount of Rs.1.2 crores with 18% interest but no action was taken. 6. The main contention raised by the respondents is that the claim of refund of Rs.1.2 crores relates to the period prior to 4th April, 1991. Thus it was certainly prior to the cut off date and accordingly cess on royalty was demanded by the District Mining Officer for the period up to 4th April, 1991. In the initial round a writ petition (civil) No.4158 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner herein for the same set of relief which after recording the aforesaid fact disposed it of with a direction to the authority to decide the claim by a reasoned order. An L.P.A. No.166 of 2006 was preferred by the petitioner herein which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.3.2007 on the ground that a new cause of action has arisen by virtue of order passed by the Mining Officer on 31.10.2006. On reading the order dated 31.10.2006 it will be clear that the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa held as under”- “The whole case of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. is based upon the demand note memo no.572 dt. 21.04.1992 which clearly mentions the period till 04.04.1991 only. On reading the order dated 31.10.2006 it will be clear that the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa held as under”- “The whole case of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. is based upon the demand note memo no.572 dt. 21.04.1992 which clearly mentions the period till 04.04.1991 only. As such no refund of cess amount aggregating to Rs.60,00000/-is admissible in the light of The Cess and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 (16 of 1992) and Hon’ble High Court order dated 27.02.2006 as this amount does not pertain to the period 5th April, 1991 onwards, and also as per Hon’ble High Court Division Bench order dated 23.12.2003 in CWJC No.2943 of 1996(R )/2945 of 1996 (R )/ 4174 of 1996 (R ).” The learned counsel for the respondents further raised a contention that the present writ petition is barred under the principles of constructive resjudicata since there is no new cause of action nor any liberty was granted by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.166 of 2006 which was dismissed as withdrawn and the present writ petition has been filed for the same set of relief. 7. I have considered the pleadings and the rival submissions and the judgments in issue. It will be relevant to refer the ratio of the judgment of the District Mining Officer with regard to the issue in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph 24 that they were in agreement to the conclusion arrived at by the Patna High Court and by upholding the Validation Act to be valid further held that such validation acts do not authorize any fresh levy or collection in respect of the liabilities accrued prior to 4.4.1991, though it prohibits refund of the collection already made prior to that date. 8. Be that as it may, the same issue again came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 451 in Assistant Director of Mines & Geology Vrs. Deccan Cement Ltd. & Anr. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in question and also the ratio of the judgment in District Mining Officer at paragraph 5, 6 & 8 held as under:- “5.It appears that in District Mining Officer case this Court was of the view that they levy may have been validated and that did not authorize collection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in question and also the ratio of the judgment in District Mining Officer at paragraph 5, 6 & 8 held as under:- “5.It appears that in District Mining Officer case this Court was of the view that they levy may have been validated and that did not authorize collection. It is to be noted that there are different stages in the matter of imposition of tax or cess. First is the source of power for levying tax or cess as the case maybe. The second is the actual levy by an adjudication or assessment order. Sometimes, the quantification of the amount payable is done in the adjudication/assessment order. Finally, comes the question of collection. That being so, collection is a natural corollary of the levy. It is inconceivable that the levy is valid but collection can be held to be impermissible. This is an irreconcilable situation. 6. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in District Mining Officer case regarding impermissibility of collection in the portion quoted above. 8. We, therefore, refer the matter to a larger Bench to test the correctness of the conclusion that the levy was permissible by the Validation Act, but amounts which have not already been collected, cannot be collected. The records maybe placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.” 9. The admitted fact remains that the cut off date as fixed under the Validation Act, 1992 was 4.4.1991 and the demand memo No.572 dated 21.4.1992 which is sought to be challenged even though subsequent is for the period prior to the cut off date i.e. 4.4.1991. Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that pursuant to the enactment of the Validation Act, 1992 the collection of levies already made up to 4th April, 1991 were not required to be refunded but it did not authorize collection of cess or taxes which accrued subsequent to the cut off date. In the instant case the petitioner admitted that the demand was for a period prior to 4.4.1991 and not thereafter. Collection is a natural corollary of the levy for which the impugned demand Memo No.572 dated 21.4.1992 was raised. However, the issue with regard to impermissibility of collection after the cut off date has been referred to a Larger Bench and thus it should await the outcome of the same. 10. Collection is a natural corollary of the levy for which the impugned demand Memo No.572 dated 21.4.1992 was raised. However, the issue with regard to impermissibility of collection after the cut off date has been referred to a Larger Bench and thus it should await the outcome of the same. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.