Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1656 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-08

ARUN KUMAR RAI, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : Prayer 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2013/30.10.2013 passed by Certificate Officer (Mining), Bokaro in Certificate Case No.04/12-13 by which the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 has been rejected without taking into consideration the documents having bearing on the issue. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as:- The petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of section 615 of the Companies Act and has been incorporated by the Central Government for the purpose of exploring and extracting mineral coal in several areas. For the purpose of mining, the petitioner company has established various projects at various collieries. Amlo Project is one such project of the petitioner company situated in the district of Bokaro. 3. The royalty with respect to the coal extracted is payable under Section 9 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 at the rate as prescribed under schedule II to the said Act. The royalty is payable as per the rate prescribed by the Ministry of Coal on the actual price of coal. 4. On the basis of the power delegated to the Coal India Limited, the price of coal is notified by Coal India Limited and the Coal India Limited had prescribed a rebate of 5% for supply washery grade cooking coal to power houses other than captive ones. 5. Based upon the said notification issued by Coal India Limited, the petitioner company had also issued a letter dated 26.02.2011 informing all areas and washeries of CCL regarding the revision of price of coal and in the said letter at clause 13, it had been mentioned that a rebate of 5% shall be given for supply of washery grade cooking coal to all power houses other than captive ones. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that from Amlo Project of the petitioner company, the coal of washery grade cooking coal supplied to various power projects like NTPC Uchahar, Tauda Thermal Power House, U.P., Gurunanak Deo, TPP, Bhatinda, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, Haryana State Electricity Board, Ropar Thermal Power Plant, PSEB, Punjab. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that from Amlo Project of the petitioner company, the coal of washery grade cooking coal supplied to various power projects like NTPC Uchahar, Tauda Thermal Power House, U.P., Gurunanak Deo, TPP, Bhatinda, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board, Haryana State Electricity Board, Ropar Thermal Power Plant, PSEB, Punjab. All these power projects are State owned power projects or Central Government owned power project and against the supply of washery grade cooking coal in view of the directions passed by the Coal India Limited, a price discount at the rate of 5% had been given. 7. Further, on the basis of the price realized from the power project, the royalty at the prescribed rate had been paid to the respondent authorities. Though the royalty on the basis of the price of coal realized against the coal supplied to power project has been paid, in spite thereof, the District Mining Officer (Respondent no. 3) filed a requisite for issuance of certificate for an amount of Rs.96,39,533.00 claiming royalty and penalty on the alleged short payment of royalty because of difference of price of 5% between the notified price of coal and the actual sale price. Such requisition was registered by the Certificate Officer, Bokaro as Certificate Case No. 04/12-13 and the Certificate Officer was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner. 8. On receipt of the notice, the Project Officer, Amlo Project of the petitioner company vide letter dated 01.01.2013 had informed that the royalty which has been collected is with respect to the coal supplied to power houses in different States and as per the price fixed by Coal India Limited, a rebate of 5% has been given against the said supplies of coal and therefore royalty has been paid on the actual price realized from the said power projects and hence no further royalty is payable. 9. 9. Subsequently a detailed supplementary objection under section 9 of the Bihar & Orrisa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1914) was filed giving the details with respect to the price realized against the supply of coal made to the power houses and also the details of royalty paid against the said supply of coal realized and it was mentioned therein that as the notification of price with respect to coal itself indicated that a rate of 5% is required to be given on the price of coal to be supplied to the power houses, a royalty is payable on the actual price of coal realized and hence the certificate amount as claimed is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the certificate proceeding is liable to be dropped. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that it would be apparent from bare perusal of the entire ordersheet, the petitioner had produced all documents to show that the said supply of coal was made to power plant and a rebate of 5% was given in view of the provision contained in notification fixing the price of coal and the case was adjourned from time to time. The case was lastly heard on 23.8.2013 and on that day case was adjourned to 30.09.2013 for further hearing. On 30.9.2013, the representative of the petitioner company appeared before the learned Certificate Officer and filed their attendance. However, no hearing took place on that day and the representative was asked to appear personally on 30.10.2013. On 30.10.2013, when the representative of the petitioner company appeared, his attendance was sought and thereafter no information was given. All of a sudden, the petitioner company was informed that a final order was passed on 30.10.2013 rejecting the objection and directing the petitioner to pay the certificate dues along with interest and office was directed to issue distress warrant if the said dues are not paid by 30.11.2013. 11. Against the said order dated 30.09.2013/30.10.2013 the instant writ petition has been filed. 12. It is evident from the factual aspect that the certificate proceeding has been initiated against the writ petitioner, Central Coalfields Limited, on account of demand to the tune of Rs.96,39,533/-. 13. The writ petitioner had been given opportunity to file objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. 14. 12. It is evident from the factual aspect that the certificate proceeding has been initiated against the writ petitioner, Central Coalfields Limited, on account of demand to the tune of Rs.96,39,533/-. 13. The writ petitioner had been given opportunity to file objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. 14. The due reply has been filed taking the specific plea of applicability of the decision taken in the notification dated 26.02.2011, as appended as Annexure-2 to the paper book wherein the decision has been taken to the effect that a rebate of 5% shall be given for supply of washery grade coking coal to all power houses other than captive ones. 15. The Certificate Officer has passed order by rejecting the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 vide impugned order dated 30.09.2013/30.10.2013 against which the present writ petition. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner 16. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has submitted that it is a case where the Certificate Officer has not considered the issue which he was required to consider in view of the mandate of the Act, 1914 and that is the reason the adjudicatory right has been given to the Certificate Officer by consideration of the objection to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. 17. It has been contended that the specific plea/ground has been taken that a rebate of 5% is to be given in the light of the letter dated 26.02.2011, as appended as Annexure-2 to the paper book, which has been admitted on behalf of the respondents in the statement made at paragraph 5 and 6 of counter affidavit by appending the same decision dated 26.02.2011 by way of Annexure-A appended thereto. 18. The ground, therefore, has been raised that when a specific plea has been taken in the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, then it is the bounden duty of the Certificate Officer to consider the same as per the mandate of Section 10 of the Act, 1914 but if the impugned order will be considered, there is even no reference of the said policy decision dated 26.02.2011 even though the said policy decision as contained in the said communication has not been disputed by the State. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the State 19. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing for the respondent State, has submitted on the strength of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the provision of appeal is there in the Act, 1914 and, as such, writ petition may not be entertained. 20. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response, has submitted that there is no dispute that the provision of appeal is there but when there is no consideration of objection as taken in the application filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 then the question of availability of alternative remedy is not proper to be raised on behalf of the State. Analysis 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit and we have also gone through the impugned order. 22. The question raised on behalf of the State regarding the availability of alternative remedy, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to first consider the issue of maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 23. There is no dispute that if statutory remedy of appeal is available, then generally writ petition is not to be entertained but there is exception to the same and in certain circumstances, i.e., violation of principle of natural justice or flagrant violation of statutory provision, the writ petition can be entertained as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others , (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where alternative remedy existed, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, “unless there are good grounds therefor”, which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that writ petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances. 24. We have considered the mandate of Section 10 of the Act, 1914, wherein, the statutory stipulation is in two parts, first the hearing and thereafter the determination. 24. We have considered the mandate of Section 10 of the Act, 1914, wherein, the statutory stipulation is in two parts, first the hearing and thereafter the determination. Determination in the consequence, after hearing the plea taken by the Requisitioning Officer and the objection so raised under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. If that course would be followed, then, it will be said that the mandate of Section 10 in strict sense has been followed. 25. The question of availability of alternative remedy is the sole basis to raise the issue of maintainability. The pre- requisite condition to file an appeal as required to be filed under Section 60 of the Act, 1914, the 40 per cent amount is to be deposited, therefore, it is not that, without any amount the appeal is to be filed. 26. In that circumstance, it could be understood that if the parties are relegating before the alternative forum to file an appeal, then no prejudice will be said to be caused due to no requirement of depositing the pre-requisite amount to file an appeal. 27. But if the pre-requisite condition is there to deposit 40 per cent of amount to file an appeal, then, the Court is to see as to whether the order passed by the original authority is in strict adherence to the statutory mandate as per Section 10 of the Act, 1914 so far as the present case is concerned. 28. This Court has gone through the order dated 30.09.2013/30.10.2013 and found that in the 3 rd paragraph, the reference of notice given under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 has been referred along with para-wise report of the Requisitioning Officer dated 09.02.2013, wherein, it has been stated that M/S Amlo Project has transported W- (iv) coal to the power house to the extent of 1085980.35 MT from the month of July, 9 to March 11 which has been shown in the monthly stock register but 5 per cent rebate has been taken on 2563414.92 metric tonne of coal, thereby, the difference of coal, i.e., 1477434.57 metric tonne, the amount of Rs.69,85,169/- as principal amount and interest to the tune of Rs.2654364, total Rs.96,39,533/- has been shown to be recoverable. 29. The intent of the aforesaid paragraph is nothing but reiteration of the para-wise report submitted by the Requisitioning Officer. 29. The intent of the aforesaid paragraph is nothing but reiteration of the para-wise report submitted by the Requisitioning Officer. The 4 th paragraph is being said to be the finding recorded by the Certificate Officer. 30. We have perused the same and found that the Certificate Officer after hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant documents filed on their behalf has come to conclusion that the amount said to be recoverable to the tune of Rs.96,39,533/-. 31. It is not available, as to what is the basis to come to the conclusion in absence of the finding. The finding ought to have been arrived at by considering the ground taken by the Requisitioning Officer in the para-wise report vis-à-vis the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. 32. Therefore, this Court, is of the view that the statutory mandate as referred under Section 10 pertaining particularly to the issue of determination, is not available. 33. The question therefore, would be that if in such situation, the party will be relegated to approach the appellate forum, will it not be harsh in the circumstances where the 40 per cent amount is to be deposited as a pre- requisite amount to prefer an appeal, as commanded under Section 60 of the Act, 1914. 34. The answer of this Court would be that it will be harsh and that cannot be ignored and merely on the basis of the availability of alternative forum, as the objection is being raised, the writ petition cannot be thrown out, reason being that, if the Certificate Officer has not followed the mandate in its strict adherence, then, how can the State be allowed to take benefit of wrong committed by the Certificate Officer compelling the litigant to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal where the pre-requisite condition to deposit 40 per cent of amount. 35. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the aforesaid circumstances, that it is a case where the consideration made by the Certificate Officer is in flagrant violation of the statutory provision as contained under Section 10 of the Act, 1914. 36. Herein, the ground which has been taken on behalf of the writ petitioner in the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 has not at all been considered. 36. Herein, the ground which has been taken on behalf of the writ petitioner in the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 has not at all been considered. The aforesaid fact is not in dispute which would be evident from the bare perusal of the impugned order wherein there is even no reference of the policy decision dated 26.02.2011 which contains a provision of rebate of 5% to be given for supply of washery grade coking coal to all power houses other than captive ones. 37. The Certificate Officer simply has come to the conclusion that the reply which has been submitted at the stage of making objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 is having no merit. Why it is having no merit, there is no discussion to that effect. 38. The position of law is settled that if any show cause notice has been given or an opportunity of hearing has been given under the statutory command, then it is the bounden duty of the quasi-judicial functionary to consider it. If there is no consideration, it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice since in absence of any reason which is the sole of an order, the order so passed will be in violation of principle of natural justice. 39. Therefore, this Court, applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (Supra), is of the view that the ground which has been taken by learned counsel for the State that the alternative remedy is available, is having no basis in view of the fact that there is no consideration of the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. 40. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is to be entertained and, accordingly, the writ petition is being entertained. 41. So far as the issue on merit is concerned, it is evident from the impugned order that there is no consideration of the policy decision taken pertaining to rebate of 5% for supply of washery grade coking coal to all power houses other than captive ones. 42. 41. So far as the issue on merit is concerned, it is evident from the impugned order that there is no consideration of the policy decision taken pertaining to rebate of 5% for supply of washery grade coking coal to all power houses other than captive ones. 42. It appears from the objection filed on behalf of the writ petitioner that specific ground has been taken claiming rebate of 5% as per the communication dated 26.02.2011 as appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 43. If the statute has provided a provision for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the so called certificate debtor, then the Certificate Officer is duty bound to consider the same. 44. Consideration means active application of mind and consideration does not mean that any positive decision if taken then only it will be said to be consideration in the eyes of law. 45. The word “consideration” has also been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. A. Masilamani , (2013) 6 SCC 530 wherein at paragraph 19 it has been observed which is being quoted hereunder as:- “ 19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147 and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 4 SCC 144 ) 46. The fact about 5% rebate since having been raised before the Certificate Officer and in that view of the matter, it was the bounden duty of the Certificate Officer in the capacity of the quasi-judicial functionary while exercising the statutory power to deal with the same. 47. The fact about 5% rebate since having been raised before the Certificate Officer and in that view of the matter, it was the bounden duty of the Certificate Officer in the capacity of the quasi-judicial functionary while exercising the statutory power to deal with the same. 47. The same having not been done, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs interference. 48. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2013/30.10.2013 passed by Certificate Officer (Mining), Bokaro in Certificate Case No.04/12-13 is hereby quashed and set aside. 49. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 50. The matter is remitted to the Certificate Officer by restoring the certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.04/12-13. The certificate proceeding is to be given a logical end after consideration of the averment made in the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.