JUDGMENT : By Court Petitioner approached this Court in the present matter being aggrieved by Circular letter bearing no. F.No.11-599/2014-FC dated 1st April, 2015 (Annexure-1) and in particular paragraph 3(v) (a) & (b) issued by Respondent-Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Petitioner has questioned the competence of respondent to issue such a direction as being ultra vires Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Articles 14, 73(1)(a ), 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that petitioner cannot be made liable to pay Net Present Value (NPV) of the entire forest land comprising its leasehold area. 2. Petitioner is a Company and a Public Sector Undertaking being the largest producer of Iron and Steel in India. It owns and operates five integrated Steel Plants (i) Bhilai Steel Plant at Bhilai, Chattisgargh (ii) Durgapur Steel Plant at Durgapur, West Bengal (iii) Rourkela Steel Plant at Rourkela, Odisha (iv) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, Jharkhand and (v) IISCO Steel Plant at Burnpur, West Bengal. 3. Subject matter of the writ petition is demands of NPV relating to following leases held by the petitioner. (i) Kiriburu-Meghahatuburu lease-II for an area of 879.439 Ha. (ii) Kiriburu-Meghahatuburu lease-III for an area of 82.00 Ha. for captive mining. (iii) Gua, Duarguiburu of an area of 1443.756 Ha. All three leases concern mentioned above are extant. When the matter was taken up on 29th September, 2016, after consideration of the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent-Union of India, State as well, the following order was passed: “Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge to the conditions incorporated in the Letter F. No. 11-599/2014 – FC, dated 1st April, 2015, issued by the Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India, submits that (i) the condition to realise Net Present Value ('NPV' in short) of the entire forest land falling in the mining lease is not in consonance with the specific provisions of Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 itself. (ii) such a general direction in the nature of an executive instruction overreaching the provisions of the Parent Act is untenable in law. (ii) such a general direction in the nature of an executive instruction overreaching the provisions of the Parent Act is untenable in law. (iii) the petitioner has paid NPV for the diverted portion of the forest land falling in the mining lease as per the forest clearance granted to it, as is also evident from the letter dated 14.12.2015, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa (Annexure-2). On instructions it is further submitted that there are no proposal for diversion of remaining area of the leasehold land falling within the forest land. In such circumstances the directions contained in the impugned letter dated 01.04.2015 upon the State Government to realise from the user agency such as the petitioner NPV of the entire forest land in a mining lease within a period of one year from the date of issue of the letter is wholly untenable in law and on facts. This is also in teeth of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 126 . As a consequence of the general directions issued under the impugned letter, the State Government has been authorised in an illegal manner to keep approval of the mining lease itself in abeyance and stop such activities in the mining lease till such time NPV of such forest land is realised. The petitioner herein, therefore, has been compelled to move this Court in the present writ petition as the respondents may take coercive steps against it to enforce aforesaid conditions as is evident from the letter dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-3) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa (Respondent No. 4). Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned JC to AG appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Accordingly, as prayed for, four weeks' time is allowed. List- this case again on 27.10.2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-3).” 5. The Respondent-Union of India as well as the State of Jharkhand have filed their respective counter affidavits. 6. Accordingly, as prayed for, four weeks' time is allowed. List- this case again on 27.10.2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letter dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure-3).” 5. The Respondent-Union of India as well as the State of Jharkhand have filed their respective counter affidavits. 6. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has inter alia made the following submissions: - (i) In terms of constitutional provisions such as Articles 265 and 366(28), the impugned levy does not fit into the Jural character of a tax or even fee though it is in the nature of compulsory exaction. (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2007 (1) JCR 99 (SC) : (2006)1 SCC 1 has clearly opined that such a levy would be in the nature of fee falling within Entries 20 read with 47 of List-III under Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court while constituting the CAMPA Fund and the authorities to administer it had a pious hope that the Legislature would step in and enact a legislation to levy such an impost or fee. Ten years hence no such legislation has come. (iii) The executive cannot, in the absence of a legislative sanction, impose a compulsory exaction in the nature of a tax or fee as has been done. (iv) The very character of NPV as a compensatory levy for diversion of forest land also becomes questionable now in the light of Constitution Bench Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 11 Scale 1 . (v) The Respondent-Union of India cannot justify the levy even on the basis of the directions contained by Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2007 (1) JCR 99 (SC) : (2006) 1 SCC 1 (Supra). The impugned action is not even authorized in terms of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The matter is of wide public importance and has larger significance. 7. Learned ASGI has defended the impugned decision. He also relies upon the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. The impugned action is not even authorized in terms of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The matter is of wide public importance and has larger significance. 7. Learned ASGI has defended the impugned decision. He also relies upon the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2006) 1 SCC and (2008) 7 SCC 126 . It is also submitted that reason for the petitioner to be aggrieved herein is liability to pay NPV for the entire portion of the leasehold area comprising forest land though NPV has been duly paid and not questioned earlier for diverted portion of the forest land. He however also submits that the issue involved has larger repercussion and is of wide public importance. 8. Having regard to the nature of the issues involved, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be heard by learned Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, let the matter be placed before learned Division Bench at an early date. 9. Interim order dated 29.09,2016 shall continue till the next date.