Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Central Coalfields Limited vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ... on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 33 of 2006
with
LPA No. 34 of 2006
M/s. Central Coalfields Limited ..... ....... Appellant
[In both cases]
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) & others ..... ........ Respondents
[In both cases]
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI;
Mr. Laxman Kumar, CGC
------
th
Order No.22/Dated: 8 August 2022
These matters have a chequered history.
2. Writ petitions were filed in the year 1999 by Ms. Central
Coalfields Limited (in short, 'CCL') taking exception to the notice dated
8th February 1990 determining the lease with intention to take khas
possession of village Mohalichuwan, with all the super structures thereon.
3. By an order dated 24th June 2015, CWJC No. 776 of 1990(R)
was dismissed in the following terms:
"28/Dated:24th June,2015
Oral Order
Per D.N.Patel,J.:
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice dated
8th February,1990 which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this writ
petition, issued by the respondents under Section10(2)of the Bihar
Land ReformsAct, 1950 is under challenge,whereby, notice has
been given by the Additional Collector,Giridih to the effect that
after expiry of three months of service of notice and publication in
the District Gazette, part of the lease held by the petitioner will be
determined and the State of Bihar (now the State of Jharkhand)
will take khas possession of village Mohalichuwan with the
superstructure thereupon which includes hospital etc.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an
application for amendment was preferred to the effect that the
petitioner has also challenged notice dated 11th August, 1966,
issued by the Secretary to the State of Bihar,Revenue Department.
3. Learned counsel for the State Additional Advocate General
submitted that notice which is at Annexure-1 is yet to be determined
finally by the State. Similarly, notification for which an
-2- LPA No. 33 of 2006 with LPA No. 34 of 2006
amendment application has been preferred, has not been allowed
to be carried out in the writ petition by this Court. Nonetheless, the
said action of the State as stated in the aforesaid notification of the
year 1966 an also be challenged under the existing Revenue Laws.
4. In view of the aforesaid limited submission and also looking to
the fact that Annexure-1 is a notice issued by the respondent-State,
which is yet to be adjudicated by the State. Hence, the petitioner
shall file its reply before the respondent State authority within a
period of six weeks from today. The concerned respondent
authority under the Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950 will decide the
notice at Anexure-1,keeping in mind reply given by the petitioner.
So far as challenge to the notification of the year 1966 is
concerned, amendment has not been allowed by this Court and,
therefore, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the
said action before authorities under Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950
or under Revenue Laws applicable to the parties. The issues will
be decided by the State as expeditiously as possible and
practicable, preferably within a period of six months after filing of
reply by the writ petitioner. We also direct the respondent-State to
give personal hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, decide the
issues raised in this writ petition.
5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of U.P. v. U.P.Rajya KhanijVikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti,
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675 in paragraphs 37and38,which read
as under:
"37. We have given most anxious and thoughtful
consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. So far as
preliminary objection raised by the Corporation before the High
Court is concerned,in our considered view,the same was well
founded and ought to have been upheld. It was urged before the
High Court on behalf of the Corporation and the State
Government that the writ petition was premature inasmuch as no
retrenchment had been affected Several disputed questions of fact
were involved in the petition. If the contention of the Samiti was
that there was illegal closure of undertaking or there was non-
payment of wages by the employer, appropriate proceedings could
have been initiated under industrial law. In fact, one of the Judges
of the Division Bench upheld the contention and observed that the
employees could have claimed closure compensation under Section
25-FFF of the Act or could have approached prescribed authority
under the Payment of Wages Act relying upon Section 33-C(2) of
the Act or Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.The
other Single Judge of the Division Bench, however,held that the
writ petition had been entertained and interim orders were also
passed. Relying upon Suresh Chandra Tewari, the learned Judge
held that "the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy if the same has been entertained and interim
order has been passed". 38.With respect to the learned Judge, it is
neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid
down in Suresh Chandra Tewari that once a petition is admitted, it
cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no
doubt correct that in the head note of All India Reporter (p. 331),
it is stated that "petition cannot be rejected on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal".But it has not
been so held in the actual decision of the Court. The relevant para
2 of the decision reads thus: (Suresh Chandra Tewari case, AIR
p.331)
"2.At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question,
-3- LPA No. 33 of 2006 with LPA No. 34 of 2006
as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that
the impugned order was an appellable one and,
therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner
should have approached the appellate authority. Though
there is much substance in the above contention, we do
not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of
alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the
petition has been entertained and an interim order
passed."
Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is
that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is relevant
consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High
Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been
so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative
remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not
maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as
a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never
be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald
contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a
writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability
of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved
party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit
wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner."
6. Meanwhile, stay granted earlier by this Court vide order
dated 19th April, 1990 shall stand continued to be operative till the
issues raised in this writ petition are being finally decided by the
State including the notice at Annexure-1 to the memo of this writ
petition.
7. This writ petition is, hereby, disposed of, in view of the aforesaid
observations and directions."
4. The present Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common order
dated 19th September 2005 passed in CWJC No. 478 of 1999(R) with CWJC
No. 526 of 1999 (R) in which the issues involved are: whether the CCL was
liable to pay interest on late payment of royalty and whether such amount is
liable to be recovered as public demand.
5. These Letters Patent Appeals have remained pending for 16
years and in the meantime as many as 21 adjournments have been taken by
the parties.
6 After 13 years, by an order dated 30th April 2019, Union of India
was added as respondent No.4. It further appears that by an order dated 1 st
August 2019 these Letters Patent Appeals were directed to be heard after
disposal of WP(C) No. 3006 of 2018.
7. As prayed for, for filing an application for modification of the
order dated 1st August 2019 passed in LPA No. 33 of 2006 with LPA No. 34
of 2006 so that these Letters Patent Appeals are heard along with the said
writ petition, on the request of Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned AAG-III,
-4- LPA No. 33 of 2006 with LPA No. 34 of 2006
let these matters be listed on 8th September 2022.
8. Mr. A.K.Das, the learned counsel for the CCL, shall produce
compilation of all relevant records including the civil suit, certificate
proceeding etc.
9. Mr. A.K.Das, the learned counsel for the CCL, states that he
shall provide copies of the paper-books to the learned counsels for the State
of Jharkhand and Union of India.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
SB/Nibha (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
