Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1771 (JHR)

Central Coalfield Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-26

ARUN KUMAR RAI, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.: Prayer: 1. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, order(s) or direction for quashing the order dated 16.09.2010 passed in Certificate Case No. 25 of 2008-09 whereby and whereunder the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demand Recovery) Act has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of the entire demand amount along with interest. Factual Aspect 2. The petitioner company is mainly engaged in the business of mining of coal for the purpose thereof they have acquired several mines including the coal mines at Dhori Area. On 22.8.2003 an inspection was conducted by the District Mines Officer along with Mines Inspector and in presence of Mines Superintendent cum Manager, Dhori (Khas) and other officials of CCL wherein they found only 1100 Matric tone of coal of W-II Grade available in the stock. 3. On the basis of the said inspection report, a notice was issued by the District Mining Officer to the Project Officer Dhori Khas Project vide letter No. 688/M dated 27.4.2005 wherein it has been stated that there is a difference of 31,524.23 ton of coal in the actual stock and therefore the petitioner was asked to pay the royalty of the same which has been calculated at Rs. 2,11,50,027/-. 4. On receipt of the said letter, the Project Officer, Dhori Khas colliery vide his letter dated 16.5.2005 informed the Chief General Manager of the petitioner company about the factual position in detail and informed him that the stock which has been shown in the records of the company is not a physical stock but is a fictitious figure which is a result of over reporting done by certain erring officers of the company. 5. It has also been stated that similar shortfall of stock has been deducted in the records of other adjoining colliery also and accordingly he informed that the demand amount is substantial and unjustified. The royalty cannot be paid on the mineral which has never been mined barely because due to over reporting shown by some officer. The said figure is reflecting in the records of the company. 6. Accordingly, he requested the Chief General Manager to give an adequate reply to the said demand notice. The royalty cannot be paid on the mineral which has never been mined barely because due to over reporting shown by some officer. The said figure is reflecting in the records of the company. 6. Accordingly, he requested the Chief General Manager to give an adequate reply to the said demand notice. On the basis thereof, vide letter dated 27.4.2005 it was suitably replied and it was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities that the demand of royalty on the so-called shortfall of 3152423 tons of coal is not justified as the said stock never existed. 7. It has been submitted that several instances of over- reporting were deducted in several collieries and accordingly, the Government of India had set up a committee to investigate into the shortages. The said committee which was constituted of senior officials of the Government of India had made a thorough investigation and submitted a report giving a finding that certain officers in order to show the achievement of certain targets had shown over reporting of coal production. On the basis of the said report, CCL and other subsidiaries of coal India Limited had already initiated action against the erring officials and had also taken step to write off the said over reported coal. The concerned authorities without appreciating this fact had issued a notice under Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act by making a demand of Rs. 4,65,30,060/- regarding the dues towards royalty along with interest. 8. On receiving the said notice, the petitioner filed a detailed objection under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act but the same was rejected, hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is evident from the factual aspect that on 22.08.2003, an inspection was conducted by the District Mining Officer along with Mines Inspector. On the basis of said inspection, a notice was issued by the District Mining Officer to the Project Officer, Dhori wherein it is stated that there is difference of 31,524.23 ton of coal in the actual stock, therefore, the petitioner was asked to pay the royalty of the same which has been calculated to the tune of Rs. 2,11,50,027/-. 10. On the basis of said inspection, a notice was issued by the District Mining Officer to the Project Officer, Dhori wherein it is stated that there is difference of 31,524.23 ton of coal in the actual stock, therefore, the petitioner was asked to pay the royalty of the same which has been calculated to the tune of Rs. 2,11,50,027/-. 10. The petitioner-CCL replied but it is the case of the petitioner that without appreciating the reply submitted by the writ petitioner, the authorities concerned issued notice under Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act by making a demand of Rs. 4,65,30,060/- towards royalty along with interest. 11. Thereafter, objection has been filed however, the Certificate Officer vide order dated 16.09.2010 rejected the objection vide order dated 16.09.2010, hence, the present writ petition. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner: 12. 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. 13. Submission has been made that the Certificate Officer rejected the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demand Recovery) Act, without assigning any cogent reasons and in a most mechanical manner without determining the amount payable in utter violation of the provisions laid down under Section 10 of the Act. 14. Submission has been made that the petitioner cannot be held liable to pay royalty on the mineral which has never been actually extracted and has been shown by way of over reporting. 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. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order. 15. 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. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner- appellant has further contended that the authority concerned has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the PDR Act without taking into consideration the order/judgment 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 and, as such, the impugned order needs interference. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the State 16. 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. 17. On merit, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the same has been passed by the Certificate Officer/District Mining Officer of respective districts taking into consideration the fact that the shortage was found in the statement of the company. 18. Further submission has been made that the certificate officer after verifying the requisition and finding the same to be a public debt, has been pleased to issue notice to the petitioner-company and the petitioner-company has filed objection under Section 9 of the Act. The Certificate Officer after appreciating the objection has been pleased to reject the objection of the petitioner-company and while passing the order has recorded the specific findings that there was shortage of coal in the stock. 19. It has been contended that the petitioner-company is taking some contrary stand and even not denied the quantity of shortage. 20. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts as stated above and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from error and, as such, the impugned order needs no interference Response by learned counsel for the petitioner 21. Mr. 20. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts as stated above and, thus, the same cannot be said to suffer from error and, as such, the impugned order needs no interference Response by learned counsel for the petitioner 21. 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. 22. In addition to the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has further 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 23rd July, 2025, as such the instant writ petition may also be disposed of in terms thereof. 23. In response thereof the learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the aforesaid fact. Analysis 24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit as also gone through the impugned order. 25. The question has been 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. 26. 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 reported in (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. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others reported in (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. 27. Herein it needs to refer herein that 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 23rd July, 2025, as such the instant writ petition may also be disposed of in terms thereof. 28. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 29. This Court has gone through order dated 23 rd July, 2025 passed in LPA No. 255 of 2001 vis-à-vis the fact of the present case. 30. Admittedly, the issue involved in this case 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. 31. It further appears from the factual aspect that the issue involved in the matter pertains to quashing of the order passed by the Certificate Officer in the Certificate Case. 32. This Court has gone through order dated 23 rd July, 2025 passed in LPA No. 255 of 2001 and analogous cases vis-à-vis the fact of the present case. 33. It is evident from the order dated 23 rd July, 2025 that the issue has been agitated before Co-ordiante 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. 34. 34. The Division Bench has taken into consideration the order dated 25.09.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001 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 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.” 35. Further, the Division Bench has 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.” 36. 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. 37. 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. 37. 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 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. 38. 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. 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.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. 39. 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 similar. 40. 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. 41. The 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. 42. The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 43. 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. 44. 43. 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. 44. Accordingly, the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Certificate Case No. 25 of 2008-09 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. 45. 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. 46. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the matter is disposed of. 47. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.