JUDGMENT : 1. In both writ petitions, common issues are involved and had earlier been tagged together. Matter has been posted today on Interlocutory Application No. 34/2017 and 35/2017 preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions are now squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 705/2015 and 2017 (1) JLJR 386 (State of Jharkhand & others vs. M/s MRKR-Pallavi Upkar JV & others and other analogous cases) dated 28.06.2016. Earlier, when the petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the demand for realization of royalty on double rate in respect of sand and soil from the borrow areas of the work being executed under the Agreement with the Respondents Damodar Valley Corporation and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 13.04.2012, had been pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for realization of the enhanced royalty amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited 50% of the enhanced amount of royalty during pendency of the writ application. It is however submitted that the writ petition can now be disposed of in the light of the judgment of the learned Division Bench as the issue is no longer res integra. 3. Learned counsel for the State do not dispute the contention of the petitioner. It is submitted on their behalf that in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench on the subject, the question of levy of royalty stands covered under the residuary item at serial no. 19 of the State Government Notification dated 27.12.2010 whereunder, royalty @ 10% of the sale price on Ad-valorem basis was to be charged. 4. Petitioner was aggrieved with the deduction of royalty from running on-account Bills on account of “Ordinary earth used for filling or leveling purposes in construction of embankment, road, railways, building” by treating it under the head “Ordinary Clay” used for manufacturing Raniganj Tiles and Commercial use on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary. 5. 4. Petitioner was aggrieved with the deduction of royalty from running on-account Bills on account of “Ordinary earth used for filling or leveling purposes in construction of embankment, road, railways, building” by treating it under the head “Ordinary Clay” used for manufacturing Raniganj Tiles and Commercial use on the ground that it is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Petitioner contended that there is no such Notification bringing the Ordinary Clay within the cover of the aforesaid specification of minor minerals notified vide Annexure-8 dated 27.12.2010 issued by the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand. Matter was decided against the State by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions lead by WP (C) No. 4737/2014 and 2015 (2) JLJR 458 [M/s RAUS-SCL (JV) vs. East Central Railways] vide judgment dated 25.03.2015. 6. The State being aggrieved, moved in appeal. By judgment dated 28.06.2016 passed in LPA No. 705/2015 and 2017 (1) JLJR 386 State of Jharkhand & others (Supra), Learned Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. It has held that the writ petitioners/Respondents therein are liable to make payment of royalty as per Entry-19 of the same Notification dated 27.12.2010 issued by the State of Jharkhand under section 15 of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957. 7. Earlier, Union of India had, by Notification bearing No. GSR 95(E) dated 03.02.2000 (Annexure-5) declared the “Ordinary earth used for filling or leveling purposes in construction of embankments, road, railways, buildings to be a minor minerals”. The State Government by virtue of the Notification dated 27.12.2010, had in the residuary items at Serial No. 19, included all other minor minerals not specified therein above over which, royalty at the rate of 10% of the sale price on Ad-valorem basis was to be charged. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms of the Agreement and would pay royalty under the specified item no. 19 of the Notification dated 27.12.2010 at the rate prescribed. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms of the Agreement and would pay royalty under the specified item no. 19 of the Notification dated 27.12.2010 at the rate prescribed. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondents do not have any objection if the instant writ petitions are disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench and also followed by this Bench in other cases thereafter such as in the case of M/s Classic Coal Construction Pvt. Ltd. Ranchi vs. Eastern Central Railways and Others in WPC No. 5408/2014. 10. In view of the issue raised by the petitioner having attained finality by the judgment passed in LPA No. 705/2015 in the case of State of Jharkhand & others (Supra), writ petitions are being disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. If any amount has already been deducted from the Bills of the petitioner, it would be adjusted as per the applicable rates in terms of the aforesaid judgment. If any further liability of the petitioner remains, he would be liable to pay the same accordingly. In case any excess payment has been made by the petitioner, Respondent State would also be liable to refund the same. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner however has also pointed out that the Agreement in question relates to the year 2008-09 while the Notification of the State Government is dated 27.12.2010. Though, the issue involved has squarely been covered by the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, but the petitioner may be allowed liberty to make a representation before their employer i.e. M/s Damodar Valley Corporation and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited on the question of payment of royalty in view of the subsequent Notification. 12. Learned counsel for the Damodar Valley Corporation has however also pointed out that under the terms and conditions of the Agreement, it is a contractor's liability to pay the royalty. 13. Be that as it may, it would be open to the petitioner to make such a representation before its employer, which may be considered in accordance with law and in terms of the conditions of the Agreement. Both writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. I.A. No. 34/2017 and 35/2017 also stand disposed of. Other I.As. are closed.