[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
M/S Central Coalfields Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No.255 of 2001
-----
M/s Central Coalfields Limited, a Government Company, having its
registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi through its Project Officer,
Kathara Colliery, District-Bokaro ..................Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The District Mining Officer, Bokaro
3. The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad ................Respondents
With
C.W.J.C. No.8295 of 1999(P)
-----
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, A government Company within the
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act having its registered
Office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dissergarh, District-Burdwan, (West Bengal),
through the General Manager, S. P. Mines, Chitra, District-Deoghar.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka.
3. The Assistant Mining officer, Deoghar.
................Respondents
With
C.W.J.C. No. 8331 of 1999(P)
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Government Company within the
meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act having its registered
office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dissergarh, District-Burdwan (West Bengal)
through the General Manager, S. P. Mines, Chitra, District-Deoghar.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka
3. The Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar
................Respondents
With
C.W.J.C. No. 8336 of 1999(P)
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Government of India Company
within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act having its
registered office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dissergarh, District-Burdwan
(West Bengal) through the General Manager, S. P. Mines, Chitra,
District-Deoghar.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka
3. The Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar
4. State of Jharkhand
................Respondents
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
With
L.P.A 288 of 2001
M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, a Government Company having its
registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi through its Project
officer/Dy. Chief Mining Engineer, Bhurkunda Project, P.O. P.S.
Bhurkunda, district-Hazaribagh.
.................. Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Certificate Officer (Mines), Hazaribagh
3. The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh
................Respondents
With
C.W.J.C. No. 756 of 2001
Project Officer, Urimari Open Cast Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields
Limited, P.O. Urimari, District-Hazaribagh.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), North Chhotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Hazaribagh
................Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 77 of 2005
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited,
having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhella,
District- Dhanbad, through its Area General Manager Bastacolla Area,
Sri Arun Kumar Charanpahari, son of Sri Laxman Ram Charanpahari, at
present residing at Bastacolla, P.O. P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad.
.................. Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Commissioner of Mines, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Certificate officer (Mining), Dhanbad Zone, Dhanbad.
4. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1174 of 2020
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.
Koyla Nagar, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its General
Manager, Katras Area, Sri Jitendra Mallik, aged about 55 years, S/o Sri
Bikram Singh Mallik, residing near Subhash Chowk, Dhanbad
Tetulmari, PO- Tetulmari, PS- Tetulmari, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, PO & PS-
Doranda, District-Ranchi
2
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
3. The District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, PO, PS-Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad
4. The Certificate Officer, Mines Circle, Dhanbad, PO, PS-Dhanbad,
District-Dhanbad
5. ................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1669 of 2020
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.
Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its General
Manager, Katras Area, Sri Jitendra Mallik, aged about 55 years, S/o Sri
Bikram Singh Mallik, residing near Subhash Chowk, Tetulmari, PO-
Tetulmari, PS- Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District- Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
3. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S. & District- Dhanbad
(Jharkhand)
4. The Certificate Officer, Mines Circle, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S. &
District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.2365 of 2020
General Manager, Bastacola Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.&P.S.- Jharia,
District- Dhanbad through Sri Soumen Chatterjee, aged 57 years, son of
Late Govinda Chatterjee, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Jorapokhar, P.O.
Jorapokhar, P.S. Jharia, District - Dhanbad, PIN-828111.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. The Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S.
& District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.2386 of 2020
The General Manager, Bastacola Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. & P.S.-
Jharia, District - Dhanbad through Sri Soumen Chatterjee, aged 57 years,
son of Late Govinda Chatterjee, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Jorapokhar,
P.O.-Jorapokhar, P.S.-Jharia, District - Dhanbad, PIN-828111.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
3
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.2697 of 2020
The General Manager, Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sonardih,
P.S.-Maduban, District- Dhanbad through Sri Ram Ballabh Kumar, aged
59 years, son of Shri. Jaipati Kumar, resident of G.M. Bungalow,
Sinidih, P.O.-Sonardih, P.S.- Madhuban, District-Dhanbad, PIN -
828125.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.3096 of 2020
The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, P.O.- Kusunda,
P.S.- Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad, through Shri Vishnu Kumar Goel,
aged 56 years, son of late B.L. Goel, General Manager BCCL, Kusunda
Area, R/o GM Bungalow, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih, District-
Dhanbad,
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District-Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.3097 of 2020
The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, P.O.- Kusunda,
P.S.-Kenduadih, District- Dhanbad through Shri Vishnu Kumar Goel,
aged 56 years, son of late B.L. Goel, General Manager, Kusunda Area,
R/o GM Bunglow, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad,
PIN 828116 .................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District-Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad
................Respondents
4
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
With
W.P.(C) No.3098 of 2020
The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Kusunda,
P.S.- Kenduadih, District - Dhanbad through Sri Vishnu Kumar Goel,
aged 56 years, son of Late B. L. Goel, resident of G.M. Bungalow,
Pootki More, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad PIN -
828116.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.3099 of 2020
The General Manager, Block II Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Nawagarh,
P.S.- Barora, District- Dhanbad through its General Manager Sri
Dharmendra Mittal, aged 56 years, son of Sri Balkrishna Mittal, resident
of Q. No. 18 Harina Bagan Colony, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S. - Barora,
District - Dhanbad, PIN 828306. .................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1366 of 2022
General Manager, Barora Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.-
Muraidih, District-Dhanbad through Sri Jitendra Malik, aged about 57
years, son of Shri Bikram Singh Malik, resident of Q/No. D-18, Harina
Bagan Colony, Harina, P.O. - Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, District -
Dhanbad, PIN - 828306.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1372 of 2022
M/s. BCCL Borora Area, P.O. Nawagarh, P.S. Muraidih, District-
Dhanbad through its General Manager, Barora Area, Sri Jitendra Malik,
5
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
aged about 57 years, son of Shri Bikram Singh Malik, resident of Q/No.
D-18, Harina Bagan Colony, Harina, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora,
District - Dhanbad, PIN - 828306.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1031 of 2023
Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-
Ranchi University, P.S.- Kotwali District-Ranchi, through its Chief
Manager (Min.)-cum-Project Officer, Topa RO- OCP(A) Mine, Kuju
Area, CCL; Sri Manish Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Sri
Gopal Prasad Sah, residing at Q. No. D-5, Parijat Colony, Kuju Area,
PO- Kuju, PS- Mandu, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of
Jharkhand, 2nd Floor, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S.- Doranda,
District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, PO + PS & District-Ramgarh
(Jharkhand)
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1889 of 2023
General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Khas Jeenagora, P.S.
-Tisra, District- Dhanbad through Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha, aged about
59 years, , Son of Late Kabilash Choudhary, resident of G.M. Bungalow,
Lodna, P.O. - Bhaga, PS- Jharia, District - Dhanbad, PIN- 828301.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.3801 of 2024
General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.- Jealgora, P.S.-
Jharia, District- Dhanbad, PIN 826110 through Sri Nirjhar Chakraborty,
aged about 54 years, Son of Late Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty, resident of
6
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
Officer's Bungalow, CFRI, Nalanda Gate, Digwadih, P.O. - Digwadih,
P.S. - Jora Pokhar, District - Dhanbad, PIN - 828119.
.................. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.3854 of 2024
General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.-Jealgora PS-Jharia,
District-Dhanbad, PIN-826110 through Sri Nirjhar Chakraborty, aged
about 54 years, Son of Late Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty, resident of
Officer's Bungalow, CFRI, Nalanda Gate, Digwadih, P.O.- Digwadih,
P.S. Jora Pokhar, District - Dhanbad, PIN - 828119
................... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District - Dhanbad.
3. Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.
................Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner-Appellant : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
------
rd
Order No.07/Dated: 23 July, 2025
Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The issues involved in these matters are the same and, as such, they
are being heard and decided together with the consent of the parties.
2. In these matters, the similar issue involved is for quashing the order
passed by the Certificate Officer/District Mining Officer of different
districts of the State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder the
7
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
objection filed by the petitioner/appellant has been rejected directing
the petitioner/appellant to pay the amount in question with interest.
Factual Matrix:
3. Since all these matters are similar and, as such, it will be proper to
give the facts of one case so that that there is no reiteration of the
facts.
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in one of the
writ petitions being W.P (C) No.1174 of 2020 needs to refer herein
which reads as under:
(i) It is pleaded that the petitioner-company is engaged in the
business of mining and sale of coal.
(ii) It is pleaded that that for the purpose of mining coal, the
petitioner-company has acquired various areas under the Coal
Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development Act) and have
developed their own Mines.
(iii) It is pleaded that that under section 18A of the Coal Bearing
Area (Acquisition and Development Act), the petitioner-
company is liable to pay an amount of royalty with respect to
the coal mines by them.
(iv) It is pleaded that for the purpose of maintaining the records,
initially at the stage of mining, a tentative statement of
production is prepared for the internal records of the petitioner
company. Such tentative statement is prepared on the basis of
volumetric assessment of coal which is not a firm figure. Such
statement bears the signature of only the Manager/Project
Officer of the concerned colliery. Subsequently, a firm
statement is prepared in Form-H of the Mineral Concession
8
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
Rules, which bears the signature of the members of the survey
team constituted by the Coal India Limited besides the
Manager, Project Officer, Area Survey Officer and Area
General Manager of the concerned area, where the Mine is
situated. This statement, which is prepared in Form-H, is the
firm statement, which is binding upon the companies.
(v) It is pleaded that at the end of the year, the liability of the
royalty is required to be reconciled on the basis of firm
statement prepared by the team of survey officials constituted
by the Coal India Limited besides the local officers being the
Manager/Project Officer/Area Survey Officer and Area
General Manager in prescribed form-H, With respect to Katras
area, for the month of March, 2011, on the basis of tentative
volumetric assessment and a quantity of 117818.706 metric ton
of coal were shown in the closing balance. The statement of
royalty was prepared on the basis of actual dispatch and was
deposited in the month of April, 2011. The quantity of
117818.706 was a tentative volumetric assessment containing
overburden, shell and Rs.25717594, on the basis of which, a
certificate case was instituted being Certificate Case No. 30 of
2014-15 and notices were issued to the petitioner-company.
(vi) It is pleaded that on receipt of notice, an objection was filed
under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand
Recovery Act explaining that the entire facts mentioned
hereinabove and mentioning therein that royalty on the actual
production has already been paid and there has not been any
shortfall of royalty.
9
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
(vii) It is pleaded that that the requisitioning officer then gave a
reply to the said objection mainly stating therein that as there is
a difference of 103791.706 tons of coal, that may be presumed
to be removed/consumed and, accordingly, royalty is payable.
(viii) It is pleaded that the Certificate Officer thereafter without
considering the facts stated hereinabove, in a most mechanical
manner, simply by taking note of the difference of quantity
mentioned in Form-H and the statement of royalty prepared by
the Project Officer for the month of March, 2011, rejected the
objection by order dated 19.02.2020 and directed the
petitioner-company to pay an amount of Rs.25717594/- besides
an interest of Rs.17487964, i.e., a total amount of
Rs.43205558/-.
(ix) It is pleaded that the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2020 is bad in
law, as well as on facts and is thus liable to be set aside.
(x) It is pleaded that the petitioner has also brought to the notice of
the learned Certificate Office that in a similar matter, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2535 of
2006 have restrained the State of Jharkhand from taking any
coercive steps in the matter vide order dated 3.4.2007.
(xi) It is pleaded that the amount equivalent to royalty payable
under section 18A of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and
Development Act) is even otherwise not a public demand and
as such the certificate proceeding itself was not maintainable
on that count. This apart, the Certificate Officer after disposing
the objection filed under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa
Public Demand Recovery Act is required to make a
10
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
determination on the basis of evidences or otherwise and in the
instant case, barely by rejecting the objection filed under
section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand
Recovery Act, the Certificate Officer mechanically without
making any determination directed the petitioner company to
pay an amount of Rs.25717594 besides further amount of
Rs.17487964 towards interest. Such direction in absence of any
determination is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the
Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and on this
count itself, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
(xii) It is pleaded that the certificate proceeding on the strength of
bare difference in the statement in the internal records of the
petitioner company prepared by the Project Officer and in the
statutory Form-H, the petitioner company cannot be saddled
with the liability to pay additional royalty.
(xiii) It is pleaded that in absence of any evidence of actual
production of coal, against which royalty is being demanded,
the petitioner-company cannot be saddled with the liability to
pay royalty on such quantity of coal.
(xiv) It is pleaded that in view of the fact that the statement in Form-
H was prepared by a survey team countersigned by the various
authorities of BCCL on the basis of scientific measurement of
weight, the respondent authorities in absence of any evidence
cannot claim a difference of royalty on a difference of quantity
mentioned in an unscientific volumetric assessment of coal
made by the Project Officer in his tentative report.
11
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
(xv) It is pleaded that the amount payable under section 18A of the
Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development Act) is a
public demand.
(xvi) It is pleaded that in absence of any determination, the
Certificate Officer is not justified in directing to pay the entire
certificate dues along with interest.
5. Being aggrieved with the impugned order(s), the petitioner-
appellant have approached this Court by filing a bunch of writ
petitions praying therein that the impugned order(s) being otherwise
bad in law is, thus, liable to be set aside.
Submission on behalf of the petitioner(s)/Appellant:
6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing
the impugned order:
(i) It has been contended that only because there was a difference
in the closing balance shown in the monthly statement of
royalty prepared by the Project Officer and in the prescribed
Form, a requisition for certificate was filed by the Assistant
Mining Officer/District Mining Officer of the respective
districts of the State of Jharkhand for the recovery of the
difference amount and on the basis of which in most of the
cases certificate case was filed and notices were issued to the
petitioner-company for the impugned demand.
(ii) It has been contended that on receiving the notice in most of
the cases, the petitioner-company has already filed an objection
under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand
Recovery Act, 1914 stating therein that there has not been any
12
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
shortfall of royalty as the royalty on the actual production has
already been paid, but the Certificate Officer/District Mining
Officer without appreciating this fact, in a most mechanical
manner, has passed the impugned order directing the
petitioner(s)/appellant to pay the amount involved in the
Certificate Case with interest which is illegal and contrary to
the law.
7. 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 to 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 and, as such, the impugned order
needs interference.
Submission on behalf of the respondent-State:
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State to
defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:
(i) The 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.
(ii) It has been contended that these matters relate to stock shortage
wherein it was found that there is shortage of stock of coal in
the monthly statement of the company and in this regard the
13
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
report has been submitted by the concerned coal company in
the prescribed format.
(iii) It has been contended that after finding the difference and
taking into account the direction and guidelines issued by
department, the Mining Officer calculated the amount payable
to the department on account of stock shortage by multiplying
the royalty issued for D grade coal and the coal found in short
in the stock. It is submitted that a letter has been issued to the
petitioner-company for depositing the amount but the same was
not deposited by the petitioner and, therefore, in most of the
cases a certificate case has been filed against the petitioner-
company.
(iv) It has been submitted 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.
(v) It has been contended that the petitioner-company is taking
some contrary stand and even not denied the quantity of
shortage.
9. 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
14
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
cannot be said to suffer from an error and, as such, the impugned
order needs no interference.
Analysis
10.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
11.The issue involved in these matters 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.
12. It further appears from the factual aspect that the issue involves in
these matters pertains to quashing of the order passed by the
Certificate Officer in the Certificate Cases.
13. The issue has been agitated before 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.
14. In the aforesaid context, the order dated 25.09.2003 passed in Civil
Appeal No.9397 of 2001 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
15
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
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 30th October, 2003 and take further
directions in the matter."
15. Further, it appears from the order dated 03.04.2007 passed in
Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 which has been referred by the learned
counsel for the petitioner 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.”
16.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.
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
16
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
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
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.
22. Further, it appears from the record that in W.P(C) No.1031 of 2023
demand has been raised by the District Mining officer but no
17
2025:JHHC:20198-DB
certificate proceeding has been initiated and, as such, the petitioner in
this case is hereby directed to file fresh representation before
appropriate authority/Forum for redressal of its grievance.
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.
24. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these matters are
disposed of.
25. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
AFR
18
[ad_2]
Source link