Judgment : 1. The petitioner states that the petitioner herein is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at Mumbai with manufacturing facilities producing Cement at various locations in India including one at Madukkarai in Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu. The Madukkarai works had been established in the year 1934 and today has installed capacity of one million tonne of cement per year. The primary raw material in the manufacture of cement is limestone which is a mineral that is a major mineral under Schedule II of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, (MMRD Act) 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) made there under. 2. The mining of limestone is done by the petitioner both in patta lands owned by the respondent which are leased by the respondent Government in favour of the petitioner. Mining in patta lands as well as Government lands require mining leases to be executed by the Government in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the MMRD Act and the MCR. The terms of the mining lease include, interalia, provisions for payment of royalty to the respondent Government which is as prescribed by the MMRD Act. The MMRD Act further provides for fixation of the rate of royalty by the Central Government and the rules prevailing earlier also circumscribed the limits of the rate so as to not exceed 20% of the sale price of the mineral at the pit head. The said rule of limitation was subsequently deleted and rate of royalty was fixed per metric tonne. 3. Under the powers conferred by Section 9 & 9-A of the MMRD Act, the Central Government has periodically fixed the rates of royalty payable on the mining of limestone. This rate originally stood at Rs.4.30 per tonne in 1982 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.10/- per tonne and to Rs.25/- per tonne in 1992 and to Rs.32/- per tonne from April, 1997 and thereafter to Rs.45 per tonne from October 2004. In Tamil Nadu, there has been a practice that had been prevailing for several decades by which the royalty collected by the Respondent Government, on the limestone extracted from the mines by the mining companies was shared equally by the respondent Government and the owner of the patta lands in cases where the mining takes place at freehold lands. In Tamil Nadu, there has been a practice that had been prevailing for several decades by which the royalty collected by the Respondent Government, on the limestone extracted from the mines by the mining companies was shared equally by the respondent Government and the owner of the patta lands in cases where the mining takes place at freehold lands. Consequently, in the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated cement factories, they were paying only 50% royalty whenever they were mining for limestone ore in their own patta lands. 4. Apparently arising out of certain audit objections raised in 1977 that it was incorrect to collect only 50% royalty on minerals extracted for patta lands, the respondent government took the stand that the minerals absolutely vest in the respondent even in respect of minerals extracted from patta lands and consequently the entire royalty was payable andthe pattadar was not entitled to any share thereto. The respondent Government accordingly issued directions to all District Collectors to stop sharing the royalty with pattadars and instead make demands for 100% of the royalty on minerals extracted from on all mines including mines on patta lands. 5. A batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court by various mining companies and pattadars including cement companies such as the petitioner herein challenging the above directions of the respondent Government in seeking to collect 100% royalty on minerals extracted from patta lands. 6. The petitioner's writ petition being in W.P.No.10723 of 1988 was admitted by this Court and an interim injunction was granted on 19.09.1988 restraining the respondent from collecting 100% royalty. The petitioner accordingly continued paying 50% royalty for minerals extracted from its mines on patta lands while continuing to pay the full royalty for minerals extracted from its mines on Government lands. The batch of writ petitions came to be disposed off by a learned Single Judge upholding the right of the respondent Government to demand 100% royalty on minerals extracted from patta lands and the petitioner challenged the judgment of the single judge on appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The Petitioner's appeal was W.A.No.116 of 1992 and the same was admitted and an order was passed on 19.02.1992 granting an injunction restraining the respondents from collecting royalty in excess of 50% in so far as patta lands were concerned. 7. The Petitioner's appeal was W.A.No.116 of 1992 and the same was admitted and an order was passed on 19.02.1992 granting an injunction restraining the respondents from collecting royalty in excess of 50% in so far as patta lands were concerned. 7. A Division Bench of this Court took up the batch of Appeals for final disposal and by a common order dated 04.03.2002, this Court was pleased to hold that right to minerals extracted from patta lands vest absolutely with the respondent and hence there was no necessity to share the royalty with the pattadars. It may be relevant to state here that in the said Appeal the petitioner and other parties had taken the stand that the rights to minerals vest absolutely with the respondent and hence there was no necessity to share the royalty with the pattadars. It may be relevant to state here that in the said appeal the petitioner and other parties had taken the stand that the rights to minerals vest absolutely with the owner of patta lands and consequently, even the demand for royalty itself is unsustainable and that the Courts have traditionally presumed the vesting of the rights to minerals with the respondent on the basis of old English legal doctrines and not on the strength of any statutory provision applicable to India. The said contentions were negated and the respondent's demand for 100% royalty was upheld while holding that rights to Minerals vest with the respondent. 8. The petitioner herein as well as other cement companies approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petitions and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant leave and in the application for interim orders, notice was ordered. Finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court heard the interim applications on 19.01.2004 and passed orders as under: “The prayer for interim relief is rejected. However, in the event of the appeals being allowed, the appellants may be entitled to restitution subject to such terms as this Court may think it feasible.” 9. Finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court heard the interim applications on 19.01.2004 and passed orders as under: “The prayer for interim relief is rejected. However, in the event of the appeals being allowed, the appellants may be entitled to restitution subject to such terms as this Court may think it feasible.” 9. It is pertinent to state here that soon after the orders were pronounced by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, the Director of Geology and Mining addressed a communication to the petitioner on 19.03.2002 calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance 50% royalty for the period between 1988 to 1998 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court to which the petitioner had responded that the matter was being agitated further before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the interim application was pending before the Supreme Court reminders were also received from the respondent Government calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance 50% royalty for the period between 1988 to 1998 or obtain an interim stay on the demand of the respondent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant aspect to these reminders is that all these demands were only for the differential 50% royalty amount payable for the period between 1988 to 1998 without any demand towards interest. It may be further relevantly stated that from the year 1998, the petitioner had been paying 100% royalty despite enjoying an injunction from the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. 10. After the dismissal of the interim application by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner herein was surprised to receive from the respondent a demand notice dated 15.10.2004 received on 02.12.2004, by which the respondent has demanded a sum of Rs.8,62,43,305/- being the alleged arrears of royalty. The said demand notice was issued without granting any prior hearing and without any substantiating documents for the amounts demanded and indeed without even giving the particulars or as to how the amounts demand were arrived at. However, the petitioner states that as per its records the actual amount of differential royalty that was due and payable for the period between 1988 and 1998 was only Rs.2,94,86,795/- which figure also correlates with the respondent's own demand letter made in 09.09.2002 soon after the dismissal of the writ appeal by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. 11. 11. The petitioner had on the dismissal of the interim application by the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the said sum of Rs.2,94,86,795/- by challan dated 09.12.2004 and as far as the unsubstantiated demand for interest of Rs.5,67,58,610/- was concerned, the petitioner filed in W.P.No.39176 of 2004 seeking to quash the same interalia on the ground that the said demand notice was violative of principles of natural justice in as much as it was not preceded with any adjudication or enquiry and that the said demand was terse, non speaking and devoid of any particulars. It is pertinent to state that without prejudice to the above contentions, the petitioner also filed in W.P.No.39177 of 2004 wherein the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 64-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as ultra vires of the MMRD Act as well as being beyond the legislative competence of the framers of the Rule. 12. When the above two writ petitions came up for hearing on admission in December 2004, the respondent took notice and this Court by its order dated 07.01.2005 was pleased to record the undertaking that the respondents would not initiate any recovery proceedings in respect of impugned demand notice. Subsequently, when the above matters came up for hearing on 18.01.2005, this Court was pleased to pass final orders allowing in W.P.No.39176 of 2004 holding that the impugned demand notice did not contain any particulars nor was it preceded by any show cause notice. Consequently, this Court held that in fairness, the petitioner should have been issued the show cause notice or at least should have been given the particulars on the basis of which the impugned demand notice was raised by the respondent. Therefore, without going into the merits of the claims made by the parties, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed, while granting liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice indicating the heads under which the demand has been made and giving particulars relating to the claim. 13. The other writ petition viz., W.P.No.39177 of 2004 wherein the constitutional validity of Rule 64-A was challenged was admitted by this Court and the same is still pending for final hearing. After receipt of the aforesaid final orders in W.P.No.39176 of 2004, for more than three months there was no communication whatsoever from the respondents. 13. The other writ petition viz., W.P.No.39177 of 2004 wherein the constitutional validity of Rule 64-A was challenged was admitted by this Court and the same is still pending for final hearing. After receipt of the aforesaid final orders in W.P.No.39176 of 2004, for more than three months there was no communication whatsoever from the respondents. On 10.05.2005 through the Village Administrative Officer of Mudukkarai, a communication dated 25.04.2005 from the office of the Collectorate, Coimbatore was served on the petitioner wherein a demand notice was issued for a sum of Rs.7,40,11,062/- being the alleged interest for delayed payment of balance 50% royalty. A calculation statement enclosed with the demand notice merely discloses that interest has been calculated at a rate of 24% per annum on the amount of royalty that was allegedly due and payable. The demand notice does not even contain a reference to any provision of the MMRD Act under which the claim is being made nor was there any show cause notice issued to the petitioner before issuing the present demand notice. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 14. The petitioner further submits that the Mining lease was granted to M/s.Associated Cement Companies Limited, in patta lands bearing S.F.No.957, 961 etc, over an extent of 14.51.5 hectares of Madukkarai Village, Coimbatore (South) Taluk, to Mine Limestone, vide G.O.Ms.No.2483, Industries, Labour and Health Department, dated 09.07.1968 for a period of 20 years from 29.11.1968 to 28.11.1988. The first renewal of mining lease was granted in G.O.Ms.No.805 Industries (MMAI) Department dated 10.11.1989 for a period of 10 years from 29.11.1988 to 28.11.1998. The application for the second renewal of the mining lease was filed by the applicant company in time and the mining lease is under deemed extension under rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 herein after referred to as the “said rule”. 15. The petitioner further submitted that similarly, another mining lease was granted to the above company, in patta Land bearing S.F.No.738, measuring 2.71.0 hectares in Kurichi Village of Coimbatore (South) Taluk, for a period of 20 years vide G.O.Ms.No.1447, Industries, Labour and Health Department dated 06.04.68. The first renewal of the lease was granted for a period of 10 years from 19.08.1998 to 18.08.1998 in G.O.Ms.No.641, Industries (MMAI) Department dated 14.09.1989. The first renewal of the lease was granted for a period of 10 years from 19.08.1998 to 18.08.1998 in G.O.Ms.No.641, Industries (MMAI) Department dated 14.09.1989. The application for the second renewal of the mining lease was filed by the petitioner company in time and the mining lease is under deemed extension under rule 24-A (6) of the said rule. 16. The petitioner further submitted that the condition in clause I part V of the lease deeds executed by the lessee in both the above leases stipulated that the lessee has to pay royalty 50% of the rates specified in the second schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act No.67 of 1957) (herein after referred to as the “Said Act”). Payment of 50% royalty instead of 100% royalty on the mineral mines was a concession granted by the Government at the time of grant of leases, with a view to promote the mineral development and such industries involved in the development of minerals in Tamil Nadu. However, section 9(2) of the said Act clearly specifies that the holder of the mining lease should pay royalty in respect of the mineral removed, at the rate to be specified, from time to time, in the second schedule of the said Act. 17. The petitioner further submits that it is obligatory on the part of every holder of mining lease to pay 100% royalty as specified above. Besides, the Senior Deputy Accountant General, had also in his audit report in 1977, pointed out that the above collection of royalty at 50% i.e., at half rate, caused huge loss of revenue to the Government. Accordingly, the Government in their letter Ms.No.628, Industries Department Dated 10.05.1982, with a view to avoid further loss of revenue to the Government directed to stop collecting the royalty at 50% and to collect the royalty at 100% as specified in the second schedule of the said act with effect from 10.05.1982. It is submitted that all the lease holders were required to pay 100% royalty in respect of the minerals removed. The Associated Cement Company Limited, approached this Court and this Court in their order dated 19.09.1991 in W.P.No.10723 of 1988, dismissed the writ petition stating that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is submitted that all the lease holders were required to pay 100% royalty in respect of the minerals removed. The Associated Cement Company Limited, approached this Court and this Court in their order dated 19.09.1991 in W.P.No.10723 of 1988, dismissed the writ petition stating that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Thereafter, the District Collector, Coimbatore, issued a demand notice in RC.No.SR.26/88/L6, dated 06.01.1992 for the payment of balance 50% royalty unpaid by the lessee, in respect of the minerals already removed. The petitioner company filed in W.A.No.116/92 and this Court, granted interim injunction on 19.02.1992 in C.M.P.No.1419/92 in W.A.No.116/92, initially and later dismissed the writ appeals and miscellaneous petitions by a common order on 04.03.2002. Pursuant to the above order, demand notices were issued to the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.2,94,86,795/- being the balance of 50% royalty in respect of the mineral already removed by it, from the year of 1988-89 to 1997-98 as shown below: Year Balance of 50% Royalty unpaid (Rs.) 1988-89 19,87,475 1989-90 16,81,820 1990-91 14,75,775 1991-92 20,22,350 1992-93 41,19,012 1993-94 40,66,500 1994-95 49,07,375 1995-96 44,49,038 1996-97 30,75,950 1997-98 17,01,500 Total 2,94,86,795 18. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner company filed Civil Appeal No.5332/2002 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, against the High Court's order dated 04.03.2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, on 19.01.2004 in C.A.Nos.5329, 5333, 5335-5336 and 533/2002 made the following order. “The prayer for interim relief is rejected however, in the event of the appeals being allowed the appellants may be entitled to restitution subject to such terms as this Court may thing fit. The above civil appeals are still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 19. Since, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had declined to grant the interim relief prayed by the petitioner company and since nothing prevented the respondents from demanding the balance of 50% royalty together with interest as provided under rule 64-A of the said rules from the petitioner company and a notice was sent in Rc.No.2137/2004, dated 28.10.2004 to the petitioner company. The petitioner company remitted the balance of 50% principal royalty alone amounting to Rs.2,94,86,795/- on 13.12.2004 without remitting the interest on the said delayed payment of royalty as required under the said Rules. The petitioner company remitted the balance of 50% principal royalty alone amounting to Rs.2,94,86,795/- on 13.12.2004 without remitting the interest on the said delayed payment of royalty as required under the said Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner company filed two writ petition i.e., W.P.No.39176/2004 before this Court challenging the demand for payment of interest and another W.P.No.39177/2004 with a prayer to declare the rule 64-A of the said Rules as Ultra Vires. This Court, in their order dated 18.01.2005 disposed the W.P.No.39176/2004 with a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notice indicating the heads under which the said demand has been made and also giving detailed particulars relating to the claim of interest on delayed payment of principal royalty. 20. The petitioner further submits that a fresh Demand Notice in 2137/MM1/2005, dated 25.04.2005 of the District Collector, Coimbatore, indicating the heads under which the aid demand had to be made and the detailed particulars relating to the claim of interest, year wise, from 1988-1989 to 1997-1998, on the unpaid 50% of principal royalty amount wise, together with interest calculation sheets, year-wise to the petitioner and the above company was asked to remit the total interest amount of Rs.7,40,11,062/-. The petitioner company without remitting the interest amount as per the said fresh demand notice filed this W.P.No.17490/2005 before this Court got interim stay on 24.05.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.18999/05 in W.P.No.17490/2005. 21. The petitioner had submitted there is no utility in specifying the erstwhile limitation of 20% of the sale price of the mineral at the pit head, after fixation of specific amount of royalty per metric tonne as per the second schedule of the said Act. Hence, the petitioner company has no other go but to remit royalty for Limestone other than L.D.grade (less than 1 1/2 % Silica Content) as fixed by the Government of India with effect from different dates gives as under: Rs.4.50/- per tonne with effect from 12.02.1981 Rs.10/- per tonne with effect from 05.05.1987 Rs.25/- per tonne with effect from 17.02.1992 Rs.32/- per tonne with effect from 11.04.1997 Rs.40/- per tonne with effect from 12.09.2000 Rs.45/- per tonne with effect from 14.10.2004 22. The petitioner further submits that the lease holders were paying only 50% royalty on the major minerals mined till 10.05.1982 and the balance 50% was shared by the Government with a view to promote the development of minerals and to encourage the industries involved in the development of minerals. But due to this sharing of 50% royalty with the lease holders, the State Government sustained a very huge loss of revenue which is ultimately required for carrying out development activities for the welfare of the people. However, section 9(2) of the said Act clearly specifies that the holder of the mining lease should pay royalty in respect of the mineral removed, at the rate specified, from time to time, in the second Schedule of the said Act. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of every holder of mining lease to pay 100% royalty as specified above. Besides, the Senior Deputy Accountant General, had also in his audit report in 1977, pointed out that the above collection of royalty at 50% i.e., at half rate, caused huge loss of revenue to the Government. Accordingly, the Government in their Letter Ms.No.628, Industries Department, dated 10.05.1982, with a view to avoid further loss of revenue to the Government, directed to stop collecting the royalty at 50% and to collect the royalty at 100% for the minerals as specified in the second schedule of the said Act with effect from 10.05.1982. 23. The petitioner further submits that W.P.No.10723/1988 filed by the petitioner company when a batch of similar writ petitions was dismissed by this Court, by a common order dated 19.09.1991. The W.A.No.116/92 filed by the petitioner company with a batch of similar writ appeals was also dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 04.03.2002. It is submitted that the stand said to have been taken by the petitioner company and other lease holder is totally baseless. Nobody could dispute that all the minerals vest with the State Government. The pattadar of Rayotwari land is always given the surface right only over the land i.e., to use the surface of the land and all the minerals whether it is a minor mineral, or a major mineral or a highly valuable mineral available in the land belong to the Government. The pattadar of Rayotwari land is always given the surface right only over the land i.e., to use the surface of the land and all the minerals whether it is a minor mineral, or a major mineral or a highly valuable mineral available in the land belong to the Government. Since, the winning of the mineral by carrying out our mining operations is done by the lessee, a nominal amount as Royalty or seigniorage fee is statutorily levied and collected from the holder of the lease by the Government. It is not out of place to mention that the value of the mineral removed is not demanded and the royalty at a nominal rate is demanded from the holder of the lease. Therefore, the Courts have rightly upheld that the minerals belong to the Government and that the demand for 100% is valid and enforceable. 24. The petitioner further submits that since the prayer of the Cement Companies for interim relief was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, they are liable to pay the 100% royalty at the rates fixed for the minerals specified in the second schedule of the said Act. It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner company are baseless. The demand for payment of Rs.8,62,43,305/- not only includes the balance of 50% of royalty amounting to Rs.2,94,86,795/- but also includes the interest on the unpaid Principal royalty as provided under rule 64-A of the said Rules. However, the petitioner company remitted the balance amount of 50% royalty of Rs.2,94,86,795/- on 13.12.2004 towards Principal and the interest on the above amount, till the date of payment of the Principal royalty, is still outstanding. It is submitted that W.P.No.39176/2004 filed by the petitioner company was disposed of on 18.01.2005 with a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notice indicating the heads under which the said demand had been made and also giving detailed particulars relating to the claim of interest on delayed payment of royalty. It is submitted that W.P.No.39176/2004 filed by the petitioner company was disposed of on 18.01.2005 with a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notice indicating the heads under which the said demand had been made and also giving detailed particulars relating to the claim of interest on delayed payment of royalty. In obedience to the order of this Court dated 18.01.2005 a fresh Demand Notice in 2137/MM.1/2005, dated 25.04.2005 of the District Collector, Coimbatore, indicating the heads under which the said demand has to be made and the detailed particulars relating to the claim of interest, year wise from 1988-89 to 1997-98 on the unpaid 50% of principal royalty amount wise, together with Interest Calculation Sheets, year wise, was issued to the petitioner company and it was asked to remit the total interest amount of Rs.7,40,11,062/-. 25. The petitioner further submits that the contention of the petitioner is frivolous and untenable. The fresh demand notice was issued indicating the heads under which the said demand has to be made and the detailed particulars relating to the claim of interest, year-wise from 1988-89 to 1997-98, on the unpaid 50% of principal royalty amount wise, together with interest calculation sheets, year-wise etc. It has also been specified therein that the demand notice is issued in pursuance to the orders of this Court, dated 18.01.2005 in W.P.No.39176/2004 and that the interest amount is calculated as provided under rule 64-A of the said Rules. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner, in this paragraph is totally false and the writ petition is prima facie liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 26. The highly competent counsel Mr.C.Seethapathy, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's company had been established in the year 1934 at Madukkarai in Coimbatore District, which involves the manufacturing facilities for the production of cement. The raw material mining of limestone is done by the petitioner company both in patta lands as well as Government lands. The rate of royalty has been fixed per metric tonne by the Government. The rate was originally fixed at Rs.4.60 per tonne in the year of 1982, subsequently the said rate being enhanced periodically and now at Rs.45% per tonne from October 2004. The petitioner paying 50% royalty whenever they were mining for limestone ore in their own patta lands. The rate of royalty has been fixed per metric tonne by the Government. The rate was originally fixed at Rs.4.60 per tonne in the year of 1982, subsequently the said rate being enhanced periodically and now at Rs.45% per tonne from October 2004. The petitioner paying 50% royalty whenever they were mining for limestone ore in their own patta lands. The respondent Government took a stand that the minerals absolutely vest with the respondents even in respect of minerals extracted from patta lands and consequently the entire royalty was payable and the pattadar was not entitled to any share thereto. 27. The very competent counsel further submits that the Government has issued directions to all District Collectors to stop sharing the royalty with pattadars and instead make demands for 100% of the royalty on minerals extracted from all mines including mines on patta lands. Hence, the petitioner and other aggrieved persons had challenged the direction of the Government before this Court. This Court granted an interim injunction in writ petition No.10723 of 1988 and accordingly the petitioner is paying 50% royalty. This Court's Divisional Bench viewed that there was no necessity to share the royalty with the pattadhar, subsequently this Court's Divisional Bench negativated the petitioner's relief. Now the petitioner and other Cement Companies have filed a special lease petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 28. On the strength of the Divisional Bench Order, now the respondent has sent a communication to the petitioner to pay the balance 50% royalty and demanded a sum of Rs.7,40,11,062/- in total consisting of 50% royalty together with interest for the delayed payment of balance. 29. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.S.Ramesh, appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner company was granted mining lease to an extent of 14.51.5 hectares of Madukkarai Village. Subsequently another mining lease was granted to the company. Both lease periods were renewed. Initially the lessee has to pay royalty at the rate of 50%, thereafter it is obligatory on the part of every holder of a mining lease to pay 100% royalty. The Accountant General also pointed out the huge loss being faced by the Government. The same issue raised before this Court by way of writ petition, the same was dismissed including the writ appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had not granted any relief to the petitioner who had challenged the Division Bench order. The Accountant General also pointed out the huge loss being faced by the Government. The same issue raised before this Court by way of writ petition, the same was dismissed including the writ appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had not granted any relief to the petitioner who had challenged the Division Bench order. Therefore, the Respondent/District Collector had issued a demand notice on the basis of this Court's order. 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said impugned order passed by this Court which is inforce. Therefore, the impugned demand notice is fit to be operated upon further, hence the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.