JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. Prayer: 1. For issuance of appropriate direction upon the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to certify and send to this Court the records of Certificate Case No. 28/14-15 and to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 14/27.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Certificate Case No. 28/14-15 (Annexure- 7); whereby the said respondent has illegally rejected the objection filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act in utter disregard to the order/judgement dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9397/01 (Annexure-1), the judgement dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2535/2006 (Annexure-4) and on remand the self same issue is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 77/2005. Factual Aspect 2. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited is engaged in the business of raising and selling of coal from its collieries, mines, projects falling under different administrative areas, one of the administrative area is Block-II Area, the subject matter of instant writ petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that without first raising a demand of less payment of royalty and/or calling upon the petitioner to explain/show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 3,91,00,337.00 towards principal and interest thereupon amounting to Rs. 2,97,16,256.00 totaling Rs. 6,88,16,593.00 be not recovered from Block II Area, being the difference of opening/closing balance of coal stock of 2,36,971.74 MT of W-IV Grade coal, Certificate Case No. 28/2014-15 was instituted by Respondent No. 3 before Respondent No. 2 by issuing Certificate and Notice dated 05.08.2014. 4. 3,91,00,337.00 towards principal and interest thereupon amounting to Rs. 2,97,16,256.00 totaling Rs. 6,88,16,593.00 be not recovered from Block II Area, being the difference of opening/closing balance of coal stock of 2,36,971.74 MT of W-IV Grade coal, Certificate Case No. 28/2014-15 was instituted by Respondent No. 3 before Respondent No. 2 by issuing Certificate and Notice dated 05.08.2014. 4. Upon receipt of the notice the petitioner appeared and submitted its objection u/s 9 of Act 1914 duly verified on 11.09.2014 stating that initiation of the proceeding based upon audit observation is not maintainable, the proceeding is not backed by any assessment order followed by a demand as is mandatorily required in terms of the order dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9397/01 disposed of along with Civil Appeal No. 8392/2001 wherein direction was passed to the Mining Officer to quantify the figure in respect of which there are shortages arising out of inflation, pilferage and thereafter quantify the royalty payable giving due deduction to the amount that has been paid whether in relation to coal/stone. 5. In the objection it was also submitted that the certificate amount demanded by the Respondent No. 3 is towards royalty against the stock adjustment i.e. non-existing coal and therefore, shortage of coal adjusted in book stock based on physical verification cannot be subjected to royalty payment under Section 9 of the MMDR Act. 6. The petitioner also submitted that the certificate case is contrary to law as it is known to the respondents that royalty under the MMDR Act is not payable on stock shortage of coal adjusted in book value on account of various reasons which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 2535/2006 in which an interim order of no coercive step is also operative. The petitioner also submitted that royalty is paid by consumers/purchasers of coal at the stage of invoicing and therefore, in absence of any coal in stock in respect of which the certificate demand has been made, no royalty is payable. In sum and substance in terms of Section 9 of MMDR Act, royalty is not payable in respect of non-existing coal. In sum and substance in terms of Section 9 of MMDR Act, royalty is not payable in respect of non-existing coal. The petitioner has also stated that there may be various reasons for shortage of stock of material during physical verification from book stock on account of pilferage, over reporting due to mechanical storage of stock etc. and all these factors are required to be considered by carrying out proper assessment in the light of the judgement dated 25.09.2003 in C.A. No. 9397/01. 7. The respondent no. 3 submitted a confidential reply dated 31.08.2015 directly to the Respondent No. 2 without serving a copy of the reply to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted a petition for information stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 2535/2006 has passed an order for not taking any coercive action against the petitioner. In paragraph-3 it has been stated that the matter has been remanded to the Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. 8. The petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 without awaiting the final outcome of L.P.A. No. 77/2005 has proceeded to reject the objection filed by the petitioner by an order dated 14/27.09.2022 and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount due together with up-to date interest amounting to Rs. 6,88,16,593.00. 9. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Certificate Officer, the instant writ petition has been filed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar matter has been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 255 of 2001 and batch matter vide order dated 23 rd July, 2025, as such the instant writ petition may also be disposed of in terms thereof. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent: 11. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. Analysis 12. Admittedly, the issue involved in this instant petition relates to the certificate proceeding on the strength of difference in the statements in the records of the petitioner- company prepared by the officer concerned in the end of each month (monthly statement of royalty return) based on that proceeding has been started demanding royalty on the coal stock shortage. 13. Admittedly, the issue involved in this instant petition relates to the certificate proceeding on the strength of difference in the statements in the records of the petitioner- company prepared by the officer concerned in the end of each month (monthly statement of royalty return) based on that proceeding has been started demanding royalty on the coal stock shortage. 13. It further appears from the factual aspect that the issue involves in the matter pertains to quashing of the order passed by the Certificate Officer in the Certificate Case. 14. This Court has gone through order dated 23 rd July, 2025 passed in LPA No. 255 of 2001 and analogous cases vis-a-vis the fact of the present case. 15. It is evident from the order dated 23 rd July, 2025 that the issue has been agitated before the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court that while rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the PDR ACT , the order/judgement dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001 and the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in the Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 has not been taken into consideration. 16. The Division Bench has taken into consideration the order dated 25.09.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No.9397 of2001 which is being referred herein as under:- C.A. No. 9397/2001 “Both parties relied upon a report made by Mishra-Committee, in respect of the shortages in stocks in BCCL, appellant before us. After exhaustive consideration of the matter he concluded in Chapter VIII of that report that the shortages in coal stock should be primarily attributed to the overreporting of production of coal resulting in inflated figures in regard to production of coal. He also pointed out that there was possibility of simultaneous pilferage resulting in shortages. On an earlier occasion when this matter had reached this Court, it was remanded to the mining officer. It was not only to look into the question as to whether the amount paid by the appellant by way of royalty was shortages but also on the question as to the extent they were liable to pay royalty. The mining officer though referred to the report of Mishra Committee did not examine the matter as had been analysed in that report. The mining officer though referred to the report of Mishra Committee did not examine the matter as had been analysed in that report. The proper course for him to do is to quantify the figures in respect of which there are shortages arising out of (1) Inflation or (II) pilferage and thereafter quantify the royalty payable giving due deductions to the amount that has been paid whether in relation to coal or stones. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It would be appropriate for the parties to appear before the District Mining Officer on 30 th October, 2003 and take further directions in the matter.” 17. Further, the Co-ordinate Division Bench has not taken into consideration the order dated 03.04.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 whereby an ad-interim stay has been granted, for ready reference the said order is being quoted hereunder as: ORDER “Until further orders no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of the impugned demand.” 18. It further appears from the record that vide order dated 10.12.2014 passed in Civil appeal No.5908 of 2004 some of the cases have been remanded by the Hon’ble Apex Court to be listed before this Court for appropriate decision. 19. It is further evident from the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2025 that the Division Bench while taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties that since the disputed question of facts are involved herein and the disputed factual aspect of the matter is to be determined and, as such, it would be just and proper to relegate the matter before the concerned original authority, i.e., the Certificate Officer so that the factual aspect may be appreciated and the appropriate order may be passed, has relegated the matters before the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh on the basis of the objection already filed under Section 9 of the PDR ACT . 20. It is further evident from the aforesaid order that the Co-ordinate Bench has also disposed of L.P.A No.77 of 2005 with liberty to file objection under section 9 of the PDR ACT for its consideration in accordance with law. 21. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2025 are being quoted which read as under: 17. It is further evident from the aforesaid order that the Co-ordinate Bench has also disposed of L.P.A No.77 of 2005 with liberty to file objection under section 9 of the PDR ACT for its consideration in accordance with law. 21. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order dated 23.07.2025 are being quoted which read as under: 17. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties have submitted that since the disputed question of facts are involved herein and the disputed factual aspect of the matter is to be determined and, as such, it would be just and proper to relegate the matter before the concerned original authority, i.e., the Certificate Officer so that the factual aspect may be appreciated and the appropriate order may be passed. 18. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, the matter has already been remanded before this Court for passing the appropriate order, but as has been submitted and concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the factual aspect is to be determined and, as such, the better would be to relegate the matter before the original authority. 19. In view of aforesaid concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these matters are being relegated before the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh on the basis of the objection already filed under section 9 of the PDR ACT . 20. It appears from the record that in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 the certificate proceeding has been initiated but objection under section 9 of PDR ACT has not been filed. It further appears that the said appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2004 passed in W.P(C) N0.6571 of 2004 wherein the learned Single Judge while dismissing the said writ petition has directed the petitioner/appellant to avail remedy under the PDR ACT . 21. This Court is in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge and, as such, the appellant/petitioner in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 is at liberty to file objection under section 9 of the PDR ACT for its consideration in accordance with law. 23. 21. This Court is in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge and, as such, the appellant/petitioner in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 is at liberty to file objection under section 9 of the PDR ACT for its consideration in accordance with law. 23. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the proceeding be concluded within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order which shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. 22. Thus, it appears that the factual aspect involved in LPA No. 255 of 2001 and the analogous cases that the present case appears to be on similar footing. 23. Herein the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also submitted that since the disputed question of facts are involved herein and the disputed factual aspect of the matter is to be determined and, as such, it would be just and proper to relegate the matter before the concerned original authority, i.e., the Certificate Officer so that the factual aspect may be appreciated and the appropriate order may be passed. 24. Therefore, learned counsel has further submitted that the instant writ petition may be disposed of in the terms of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in LPA No.255 of 2001 and analogous cases. 25. The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 26. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the factual aspect is to be determined and, as such, the better would be to relegate the matter before the original authority. 27. Accordingly, the order dated 14/27.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Certificate Case No. 28/14-15 (Annexure- 7) is hereby quashed and set aside and the instant matter is hereby relegated before the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh on the basis of the objection already filed under section 9 of the PDR ACT . 28. 27. Accordingly, the order dated 14/27.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Certificate Case No. 28/14-15 (Annexure- 7) is hereby quashed and set aside and the instant matter is hereby relegated before the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh on the basis of the objection already filed under section 9 of the PDR ACT . 28. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the proceeding be concluded within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order which shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. 29. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of. 30. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stand disposed of.