JUDGMENT : This is an assigned matter by an order dated 09th March 2018 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 07th September 2017 purportedly issued in the light of the judgment in “Common Cause v. Union of India” (2017) 9 SCC 499 . 3. The petitioner has made the following prayer: “For quashing the demand notice as contained in letter no.1359/M dated 07.09.2017 (Annexure-9) issued by the District Mining Office, Chaibasa, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,35,12,96,492/- (Rs. Three thirty five crore twelve lakh ninety six thousand four hundred and ninety two only) has been directed to be paid by 31.12.2017.” 4. Mr. Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand notice dated 07th September 2017 was issued in complete violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as no notice or an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment in “State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapanai Dei” AIR 1967 SC 1269 to submit that it is mandated in law that even an administrative authority is required to afford an opportunity of hearing if the order proposed to be passed follows civil consequences. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment in “Common Cause” in no case would become a decree of the Court on the basis of which the petitioner can be saddled with a huge penalty of Rs.3,35,12,96,492/- in the garb of sub-section 5 to section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, MMDR Act, 1957). Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all fairness the matter requires an order of remand with a direction to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the amendment made in MMDR Act to the extent that the expression “without lawful authority” has been explained by way of amendment of 2021. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the amendment made in MMDR Act to the extent that the expression “without lawful authority” has been explained by way of amendment of 2021. 7. Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 reads as under : “21(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.” 8. The explanation incorporated in section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 reads as under: “On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression “raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority” occurring in this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence or in contravention of the rules made under Section 23-C. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would read out the statement of objects and reasons and the statement made by the Minister during the debate in the Parliament to submit that the Parliament when became aware of the difficulties faced by the mining industry proposed an amendment to obviate the difficulties faced by the industry due to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in “Common Cause”. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgments in “Zile Singh v. State of Haryana” (2004) 8 SCC 1 and “CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd.” (2008) 9 SCC 622 to submit that a clarificatory amendment would have a retrospective effect and while so in the light of the judgment in “Dayawati v. Inderjit” AIR 1966 SC 1423 the amendment made by the Parliament can be taken note of by the Court at appellate and revisional stage also. With reference to the judgment in “CBI v. Keshub Mahindra” (2011) 6 SCC 216 , it is submitted that no decision by a Court can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions of an Act and, therefore, the amendment made in MMDR Act has to be given effect. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 21st February 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases, particularly paragraph no. 8, to submit that judicial proprietory and discipline require that either this writ petition is referred before the Hon'ble Division Bench to be heard alongwith WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases or await a decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the demand notice dated 07th September 2017 suffers from serious calculation errors as well as errors of record. To support this plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph no. 44 of the memorandum of writ petition, particularly, sub-paragraph (a) of the said paragraph which reads as under : “44(a) For the year 2001-2002, the actual production was 14785 MT, whereas the permissible production was 18491 MT and, thus, the production was 3706 MT less than the permissible production, but, the respondent concerned has treated the said 3706 MT to be excess production and accordingly charged compensation.” 13. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that imposition of interest @ 24% is too harsh, onerous and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to submit that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted penalty with interest @ 12% only whereas the State of Jharkhand has arbitrarily chosen to impose interest @ 24%. 14. At this stage, it is indicated that today is the preliminary hearing of this writ petition, no notice has been issued to the State and the Court has not invited a counter-affidavit in this matter. 15. The learned State counsel has raised an objection to maintainability of the writ petition on various grounds. 16. This writ petition has been heard together with WP(C) No. 1083 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 1085 of 2018. 17. The writ petition was filed on 15th February 2018 and thereafter for long 3½ years the matter remained pending in defects. 15. The learned State counsel has raised an objection to maintainability of the writ petition on various grounds. 16. This writ petition has been heard together with WP(C) No. 1083 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 1085 of 2018. 17. The writ petition was filed on 15th February 2018 and thereafter for long 3½ years the matter remained pending in defects. 18. It appears that after the State issued auction notice dated 27th May 2021 a mentioning-slip was tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner for hearing of the writ petition. 19. The writ petition was listed on 27th August 2021 and 10th September 2021. In fairness to a litigant, finally the Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects which were removed on 06th October 2021. 20. This matter was listed on 06th December 2021 and at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it was adjourned for today. 21. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, this Court is not inclined to refer the matter before the Hon'ble Division Bench or to keep this writ petition pending awaiting a decision in WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases. The exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be mechanical and automatic in every case. Mere filing of writ petition is not sufficient and the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant. The benefit of an order or a judgment is not extended automatically to all similarly situated persons – conduct of an applicant is a relevant consideration. This Court is of the opinion that may be the petitioner has made out an arguable case, this is not such a case in which the Court should exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 23. I.A. No. 2691 of 2021 and I.A. No. 2692 of 2021 stand disposed of.