Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 191 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2025-01-24

NAVNEET KUMAR, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the letter No.871 dated 06.05.2017 issued by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder, the demand has been raised to the tune of Rs.4,47,56,256.17 on account of additional royalty along with the interest. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated, read as under: The writ petitioner-company is engaged in the mining, processing and sale of coal for which the writ petitioner company has acquired several mines. Consequently, the writ petitioner company has acquired lands through Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for developing washeries for the purpose of processing the coal, which is mined in different mines of the petitioner Company. It is the case of the writ petitioner that under Rule 64(B) and 64(C) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in case processing of mine is carried out within the lease area then royalty shall be chargeable on the processed mineral removed from the leased area and the writ petitioner-company has not been granted any lease by the State Government or the Central Government for mining coal as the land where the mining operations are being done has been acquired by the writ petitioner-company under the Coal Bearing Act (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that where the mineral is processed within a lease hold areas, the lessee is liable to pay royalty on the processed mineral, however, if the minerals are not processed within the lease hold areas, no royalty on the processed mineral is required to be paid rather royalty is required to be paid on the minerals removed from the mining lease areas and the writ petitioner-company is regularly making payment of sum equivalent to royalty to the State Government under the coal which is mined in different mines of the writ petitioner-company in terms of Section 9(3) of the MMDR Act . 3. However, while ignoring the settled proposition the concerned District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has demanded additional royalty to the tune of Rs.4,47,56,256.17 vide letter No.871 dated 06.05.2017. 4. 3. However, while ignoring the settled proposition the concerned District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has demanded additional royalty to the tune of Rs.4,47,56,256.17 vide letter No.871 dated 06.05.2017. 4. Being aggrieved with the demand of such additional royalty amount, the writ petitioner-company has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid demand letter. 5. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition and as referred above that the writ petitioner has challenged the demand issued by way of royalty on the ground that the said royalty is not payable by the writ petitioner on account of the land owned by the Central Coal Field Limited, the writ petitioner, which has been acquired under the provision of Coal Bearing Act, 1957. 6. The ground has also been taken therein that the royalty has been paid on the unprocessed coal but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact again the demand in lieu of the royalty has been made upon the processes coal in view of the provision of Rule 64 (B) and 64 (C) of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960 (preamended). 7. It has been pointed out by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the identical matters have been dealt with by this Court wherein the ground has been taken into consideration of violation of principle of natural justice and based upon that the impugned orders in those writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) No.2927 of 2017 and batch matters, have been quashed and set aside. Thereafter the matter was remitted before the competent authority to adjudicate the issue by framing the issue with respect to the applicability of the statutory provision that whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(1) or a case of Rule 64(B)(2) or it is a case of Rule 64(C). 8. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, after going through the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2927 of 2017 along with the batch cases, has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order for the purpose of fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition. 10. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition. 10. This Court, on consideration of submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the issue having been dealt with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2927 of 2017 and batch matters disposed of on 04.12.2023, has gone through the said order, copy of which has been placed before this Court. 11. It is evident therefrom that the question of violation of principle of natural justice has been agitated which has been taken into consideration by going through the order impugned in those writ petitions and thereafter the impugned orders have been quashed and set aside, as would appear from paragraphs 32 and 33 of the said judgment. 12. This Court, after adverting to the order impugned, herein also has found that no notice has been issued prior to issuance of demand notice against the petitioner. 13. From perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the principle of natural justice having not been complied with and, as such, the said order needs interference in the same manner as has been interfered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2927 of 2017 and batch matters, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of said judgment are being quoted hereunder as :- “32. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned orders since have been issued without providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petition and further without making discussion about the applicability of the provision of Rule 64(B)(1), Rule 64(B)(2) and Rule 64(C), hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders require interference. 33. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 25.10.2016, 14.10.2009, 17.11.2009, 24.11.2009, 12.12.2009, 26.02.2010, 13.10.2009 are quashed and set aside. 34. Since this court has interfered with the impugned orders on the ground of violating of principles of natural justice, hence, the requirement of law will be that the matter needs to be referred before the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer to pass fresh orders by providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner so as to decide : (i) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(1). (ii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(2). (iii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(C). 35. (ii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(2). (iii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(C). 35. Let the concerned competent authority take decision to that effect by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law but prior to that it is incumbent upon the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer to issue show cause notice to the writ petitioner which shall be issued within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petitioner, on receipt of such show cause notice, will file response within a period of three weeks thereafter. The concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer will take decision in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such response by passing a reasoned order. Needless to say that if there is none appearance on behalf of the concerned party even after receipt of the notice, the concerned authority will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The demands which are subject matter of the instant writ petitions, will depend upon the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer.” 14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the present writ petition is to be disposed of in terms of the said order. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order No.871 dated 06.05.2017 issued by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. The matter is referred before the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh to pass fresh order by providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner so as to decide : (iv) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(1). (v) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(2). (vi) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(C). 17. Let the concerned competent authority take decision to that effect by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law but prior to that it is incumbent upon the concerned District Mining Officer to issue show cause notice to the writ petitioner which shall be issued within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petitioner, on receipt of such show cause notice, will file response within a period of three weeks thereafter. The writ petitioner, on receipt of such show cause notice, will file response within a period of three weeks thereafter. The concerned District Mining Officer will take decision in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such response by passing a reasoned order. Needless to say, if there is non-appearance on behalf of the concerned party even after receipt of the notice, the concerned authority will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The demand which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition, will depend upon the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the concerned District Mining Officer. 18. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.