JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ application involves a challenge to the order dated 21.3.1997 passed in Certificate Case No.2/95 appearing at Annexure-4 and the order dated 31.3.1998 passed in Certificate Appeal Case No.9/97 appearing at Annexure-6. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner is a Government Company, which is engaged, inter alia, in extraction and sale of coal from the mines held by it. The petitioner owns various collieries in the district of Jharsuguda. The coal bearing lands involving the above collieries have been acquired by the Central Government under the provision of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ( in short, “the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957”) . On publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under Section 9, the lands and rights over the said land vest absolutely with the Central Government and under Section 10 or continuing to show vests, vest in the Government Company from the date of satisfying in such direction. Accordingly, Central Government on various dates issued orders vesting of the particular land in the Government Company, i.e., the predecessor of the present Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (M.C.L.). On vesting of such land from the Government Company, different Projects, such as Bharatpur Open Cast Project, Kalinga Open Cast Project and Balanda Colliery Project started functioning under the Government Company, i.e., C.C.L./S.E.C.L. and M.C.L., which are successors-in- interest in succession and the Government Company has the right to use including the mining in the said land without taking any mining lease under the Mineral Concessions Rules from the State Government. As such, the petitioner claims that the M.C.L. is operating on the land acquired under the provision of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, accordingly no lease was ever executed under the provision of the Mineral concession Rules between the M.C.L. or its predecessors-in-interest with the State Government for operation of either of the Projects. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Deputy Director of Mines, O.P.1 issued a requisition along with a certificate to the O.P.2, the Certificate Officer on the head of interest for delayed payment of royalty in respect of collieries/open cast projects appearing at Anexure-2. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Deputy Director of Mines, O.P.1 issued a requisition along with a certificate to the O.P.2, the Certificate Officer on the head of interest for delayed payment of royalty in respect of collieries/open cast projects appearing at Anexure-2. Upon receipt of the certificate, vide Annexure-2, the petitioner submitted the denying liability petition contending therein that the levy of interest is not permissible against the certificate debtor, as the M.C.L. is not paying any royalty under the provision of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, “the M.M.(D.R.) Act, 1957”) read with Rule 64-A of the Mineral Concession Rules (in short, “the M.C. Rules”) with further clarification in the denying liability petition that the mines are operated by way of extraction following the authority with the Company under the provisions of C.B.A. Act, 1957. It is for no mining lease being executed with the M.C.L., the petitioner contended that neither there is any royalty involved nor levy of interest on delayed payment of royalty arises, for which there is no arrear land revenue to be collected on initiation of certificate proceeding. The certificate proceeding was concluded confirming the demand, vide Annexure-4. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.3.1997 passed in Certificate Case No. 2/95 the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 of the O.P.D.R. Act before the A.D.M., Angul registered as Certificate Appeal No. 9/1997. O.P.3 disposed of the Certificate Appeal Case against the petitioner, vide the impugned order appearing at Annexure-6. 5. Assailing the impugned order, Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel contended that for no involvement of lease under the provision of the M.M.(D.R.) Act, 1957, there is no question of involvement of any royalty involving the provision in the M.C. Rules. Further for the involvement of a vesting of land with the petitioner-Company following the provision of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, there is no involvement of any royalty at all. It is further contended that for the payment involved involving the petitioner for operating the Projects under the provision of Section 18-A of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, payment, if any, cannot be construed to be payment of royalty under Section 9 of the M.M.( D.R.) Act, 1957. It is further contended that for the payment involved involving the petitioner for operating the Projects under the provision of Section 18-A of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, payment, if any, cannot be construed to be payment of royalty under Section 9 of the M.M.( D.R.) Act, 1957. Further there being no mining lease executed between the State Government and the M.C.L. or its predecessors-in-interest, there is no stipulation, as contained in Clause-3 of Chapter-VI, form-K of the M.C. Rules. It is also contended that since the amount paid here is not payable under the provision of Section 9 of the M.M. (D.R.) Act, 1957, neither the provision at Section 25 of the M.M.(D.R.) Act nor the provision contained in rule 64-A of the M.C. Rules is applicable to the payment made by the M.C.L. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner thus contended that the authorities below failed in appreciating the stand taken by the petitioner before both the authorities and both the authorities failed to appreciate the provisions contained in both the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957 and the M.M.(D.R.) Act, 1957 and thus arrived at the wrong and illegal impugned orders, vide Annexures-4 & 6. Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner for the above contended that the initiation of the proceeding under the O.P.D.R. Act since illegal and without jurisdiction, the orders, vide Annexures-4 & 6, as a consequence of such without jurisdiction, initiation of proceeding also becomes bad and claimed both the orders should not only be interfered with but also be set aside. 6. Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, while objecting each of the submissions made by the Sri Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, referring to the provision under Sections 10 & 11 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 contended that following the aforesaid provisions, the company is a lessee to the State Government and as such, the lessee has to run the mine following the provisions of the mining lease under the M.M.(D.R.) Act, 1957 and the M.C. Rules. Sri Sahoo further referring to the provision contained in Section 17(3) of the M.M.(D.R.)Act, 1957 for the clarity in the provision that where the Central Government undertakes prospecting or mining operation in any area, the Central Government shall not only be liable to pay prospecting fee but also to pay royalty, surface rent or dead rent, as the case may be, at the same rate at which it would have been payable under this Act. For the petitioner’s being a Central Government Company, it was necessary for the Central Government Company to enter into an agreement with the State Government to clarify the mode of payment of royalty. Referring to the provision contained in Section 18 of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel further contended that for the provision contained therein, the vesting of the property of the State can only be treated by way of a lease and for the involvement of a prospecting and mining of the minerals, the petitioner is liable to pay royalty. The amount paid by the petitioner, therefore, becomes on the head of delayed payment of royalty. Under the circumstance, Sri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that there is no illegality either in initiation of the proceeding or passing the orders, vide Annexures-4 & 6. It is under the above premises, Sri Shoo submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed for having no merit. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the provisions contained in the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, the Legislative intention behind bringing the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957 is to establish in the economic interest of India, greater public control over the Coal Mining Industry and its development by providing for the acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land, for the extinguishment or modification of such rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease, licence or otherwise, and for matters connected therewith. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court does not find existence of any dispute with regard to quantum involved in the certificate proceeding and for the particular involvement of the question as to whether the initiation of the proceeding under the provision of the O.P.D.R. Act, taking the aid of the provision of the M.M.(D.R.) Act, 1957 as well as the M.C. Rules, it is now to be examined as to whether for the vesting of the land involved following the provision of Section 18 of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, initiation of proceeding under the provision of O.P.D.R. Act is maintainable or not ? For the reliance of both the parties the provisions of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, this Court proceeds to take note of the provisions at Sections 10, 11 & 18A of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, which read as follows : “10. Vesting of land or rights in Central Government.—(1) On the publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under section 9, the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government 6 [free from all encumbrances]. (2) Where the rights under any mining lease 1 [granted or deemed to have been granted by a State Government] to any person are acquired under this Act, the Central Government shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Central Government, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules. 11. 11. Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply, or has complied, with such terms and conditions as the Central Government may think fit to impose, direct, by order in writing, that the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government under section 10 or continuing to so vest, vest in the Government company either on the date of publication of the declaration or on such other date as may be specified in the direction. (2) Where the rights under any mining lease acquired under this Act vest in a Government company under sub-section (1), the Government company shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Government to the Government company, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules; and all the rights and liabilities of the Central Government in relation to the lease or the land covered by it shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the rights and liabilities of the Government company. 18A. 18A. Payment to State Governments in lieu of royalty—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land or any rights in or over land belonging to a State Government (other than the rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State Government to any person) vest in the Central Government under section 10 or in a Government Company under section 11, the Central Government or the Company, as the case may be, may pay to the State Government such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by a lessee had such land or rights been under a mining lease granted by the State Government.” Reading the provisions, as contained in Section 10(1) of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, it becomes clear that on the publication in the Official Gazette of the Notification under Section 9, the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government and the provision contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the C.B.A. (A & D) Act, 1957 clarified that from the date of vesting, the Central Government shall be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease under the M.C. Rules has been granted by the State Government to the Central Government, the period thereof being the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by the State Government under those rules. Leaving no scope for the State to enter into any lease agreement nor is there any scope for application of provision from either the M.M.(D.R.) Act or the M.C. Rules. For the clear provisions contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 treating the vesting of coal mines in the Central Government, such vesting shall be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government, as if the mining lease under the M.C. Rules had been granted by the State Government. For the clear provisions contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 treating the vesting of coal mines in the Central Government, such vesting shall be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government, as if the mining lease under the M.C. Rules had been granted by the State Government. Now reading the provision contained in Section 18-A of the C.B.A. Act, this Court finds, where the Central Government undertakes prospecting on mining operation in any area, the Central Government shall be liable to pay prospecting fee, royalty, surface rent or dead rent as the case may be at the same rate at which it would have been paying under this Act, if such prospecting or mining operation had been undertaken by a private person under a prospecting licence or mining lease. 8. Whole reading of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957 nowhere contemplated applicability of the provisions of the M.M.(D.R.) Act or M.C. Rules except at some places it is indicated that the lease here will be treated as a lease under the M.C. Rules but the entire C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957 is absolutely silent on application of either the provision of the M.M.(D.R.)Act or M.C. Rules. The C.B.A. Act being a self-contained Act involving coal mines, the M.M.(D.R.) Act for its independent nature has nothing to do with the transactions under the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957. For the self-contained provisions and for no prescription for application of the provision of either M.M.(D.R.) Act or the M.C. Rules and for not providing any provision for collection of interest on the amount involving transaction under the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957, the State Authority treating the payment under the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957 as royalty and levying interest thereon is without jurisdiction. It is at this stage, this Court takes into consideration a communication of the Government of India in its Ministry of Coal and Mines, Department of Coal dated 2nd September, 2004, this Court finds, taking into consideration collection of Dead Rent and interest thereon involving Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. operating under the Coal Bearing Areas Act in similar situation, the Ministry directed State Government to withdraw such demands clarifying that there is no grant of lease as the State Government is only entitled to receive an amount equivalent to royalty as per Section 18(A) of the C.B.A.(A & D) Act, 1957. This Court observed for the existence of such directive, particularly in absence of any challenge to the same by the State Authority, the State Government cannot act otherwise. 9. Under the above circumstance and as a consequence, the initiation of the certificate proceeding under the O.P.D.R. Act becomes bad being without competency. Consequently the orders involving Annexures-4 & 6 also become without jurisdiction. For there being no involvement of royalty, there is no question of levy of any interest on royalty involving the case at hand. 10. Under the circumstance, this Court while holding the orders, vide Annexures-4 & 6 as bad for being involved in a proceeding without jurisdiction, sets aside both the orders, vide Annexures-4 & 6. The writ application succeeds. No cost.