Jharkhand High Court
M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd Having ... vs The State Of Jharkhand (Through ... on 12 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1870 of 2008
------
M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered office at Ispat
Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi and one of its captive mines at
Bhawnathpur under the Raw Material Division P.O. & P.S.
Bhawnathpur Township District Garhwa, Jharkhand Through G.M.
(Flux), Raw Materials Division Sri H.S. Prasad, S/O Lt Gagannath
Prasad .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand (through Secretary of Mines Government
of Jharkhand)
2. The Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa.
3. The Dy. Director-Mines Cum Certificate Officer, Palamau Division
at and Post Doltaganj, District Palamau.
.... .... Principal Respondents
4. The Additional Collector, Garhwa at & Post Garhwa.
5. The Commissioner, Palamau Division at & Post Doltanganj
District Palamau .... .... Proforma Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.1834 of 2008
------
M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered office at Ispat
Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi and one of its captive mines at
Bhawnathpur under the Raw Material Division P.O. & P.S.
Bhawnathpur Township District Garhwa, Jharkhand Through G.M.
(Flux), Raw Materials Division Shri H.S. Prasad
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand (through Secretary of Mines Government
of Jharkhand)
2. The Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa.
3. The Dy. Director Mines cum Certificate Officer, Palamau Division
at and Post Doltaganj, District Palamau.
.... .... Principal Respondents
4. The Additional Collector, Garhwa at & Post Garhwa.
5. The Commissioner, Palamau Division at & Post Doltanganj
District Palamau .... .... Proforma Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V
1
------
CAV on 01.10.2024 Pronounced on 12 /11/2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the Impugned
order dated 20-02-2008 passed by the Dy. Director Mines-cum-
Certificate Officer passed in Review Application in Case No. 16/ 88-89,
17/88-89, 25 (MP)/88-89 whereby and whereunder the refund of the 40%
of the Certificate amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards the
Certificate amount of Cess pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of
the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to the
Act, 1914) to pursue its Appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa
Dy. Director Mines-cum- Certificate Officer has been refused to be
refunded.
2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned
order dated 20-02-2008 passed by the Dy. Director Mines-cum-
Certificate Officer passed in Review Application in Case No. 61/ (90-91),
09/(91-92), 10/(91-92), whereby and whereunder the refund of the 40%
of the Certificate amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards the
Certificate amount of Cess pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of
the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to the
Act, 1914) to pursue its Appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa
Dy. Director Mines-cum- Certificate Officer has been refused to be
refunded.
Factual Matrix
3. Since, it appears that the issues involved in the both of these of
writ petitions are identical, as such with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of
by this common order.
4. From perusal of the prayers of these writ petitions it is evident that
in both these petitions the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by
the certificate officer refusing to refund the amount deposited in terms of
Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914
("PDR Act) for preferring an appeal.
5. Certificate cases were initiated against the petitioner for recovery
of an amount of cess on royalty. The certificates case no. 61 of 1990-91
and certificate case no 10 of 1991-92 were instituted for demand of
royalty and cess over the stock differences of Lime stone and Dolomite,
whereas certificate case no. 09 of 1991-92 was filed for recovery of
interest against certificate case no. 61 of 1990-91 which form the subject
matter of WPC No. 1834 of 2008 and certificate proceeding in respect of
payment of royalty and cess and case was registered and marked as
Misc. Case No. 16/88-89, Misc. Case No. 17/88-89 and Misc. Case No.
25(MP)/88-89 which are subject matter of WPC No. 1870 of 2008
respectively.
6. In the aforesaid certificate cases the certificate officer while
observing that the petitioner is liable to pay cess on royalty has rejected
the objection petitions filed by the petitioner.
7. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal against the orders
passed by the certificate officer before the appellate authority in terms of
section 60 of the PDR Act 1914 and the petitioner has deposited the
statutory amount in terms of second proviso to section 60(1) off the PDR
Act wherein it is stipulated that an appeal would not be entertained
unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has paid 40%
of the amount determined under section 10 or such amount as the
appellant admits to be due from him, whichever is greater.
8. In view of the above statutory provision the writ
petitioner/appellant deposited the following amount and has preferred an
appeal against the order of respondent no.2.
Serial Case Amount
1. Mise Case No. 16/88-89 Rs. 4648.00
2. Misc. Case No. 17/88-89 Rs. 38,177,00
3. Misc. Case No.25(MP)/88-89 Rs 35,008.00
Serial Case Amount
1. Case No. 61/90-91- Rs. 2,23,112.00
2. Case No 09/91-92- Rs. 9,00,000.00
3. Case No. 10/91-92 Rs.20,00,000.00
9. The appeals filed by the writ petitioner were registered as
Certificate Appeal No. XV/1 of 91-92, XV/2 of 91-92, XV/3 of 91-92, (in
W.P.(C) No. 1870 of 2008) and Certificate Appeal No XV/6 of 93-94,
XV/144 of 92-93, XV/5 of 93-94, (in W.P.(C) No. 1834 of 2008) but all
these appeals were dismissed vide order dated 10.09.1996.
10. Consequently, a revision in terms of section 62 of the PDR act
against order dated 10.09.1996 was filed before the collector-deputy
commissioner (respondent no.5) which were registered as Certificate
Revision No. 175 of 1996, 176 of 1996 and 177 of 1996 respectively (in
W.P.(C) No. 1870 of 2008) and Certificate Revision No. 173 of 1996, 174
of 1996 and 175 of 1996 respectively (in W.P.(C) No. 1834 of 2008).
11. Vide order dated 13.09.2005 the revisional authority (respondent
no.5) having regard to the law laid down by the judgement of the
Supreme Court rendered in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors
Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 358 has allowed
the said revisions in part and held that the amount of royalty would be
recoverable with interest but no amount of cess would be recoverable
and accordingly issued direction to the respondent no.3.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the order passed
by the revisional authority the petitioner was entitled to get refund of this
amount paid towards cess on royalty or the said amount had to be
adjusted towards payment of royalty. Further in the light of the
observation made by the Revisional Authority that the Certificate Officer
is to act according to its order, it appears that the petitioner filed petitions
before the certificate officer seeking refund/ adjustment of the amount
paid towards cess on royalty.
13. But the said petitions were rejected by order dated 27.12.2006
and 18.01.2007, thereafter petition labelling the same to be a review
petition, seeking review of the order dated 27.12.2006 (W.P (C) No. 1870
of 2008) and order dated 18.01.2007 (W.P (C) No 1834 of 2008) and
further calculate the amount in the light of the judgment and order of the
Commissioner after condoning the delay has been filed.
14. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the impugned
order dated 20.02.2008 which is the subject matter of both these instant
petitions.
15. Hence, these writ petitions have been preferred.
16. From the factual aspects it is evident that in both these petitions
the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the certificate officer
refusing to refund the amount deposited in terms of Section 60 of the
Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 ("PDR Act) for
preferring an appeal.
17. It is evident that earlier Certificate cases were initiated against the
petitioner for recovery of an amount of cess on royalty. In the aforesaid
certificate cases the certificate officer while observing that the petitioner
is liable to pay cess on royalty has rejected the objection petitions filed by
the petitioner.
18. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal against the orders
passed by the certificate officer before the appellate authority in terms of
section 60 of the PDR Act 1914 and the petitioner has deposited the
statutory amount in terms of second proviso to section 60(1) off the PDR
Act.
19. The appeals filed by the writ petitioner were dismissed vide order
dated 10.09.1996. Consequently, a revision in terms of section 62 of the
PDR act against order dated 10.09.1996 was filed before the collector-
deputy commissioner (respondent no.5).
20. The revisional authority (respondent no.5) vide order dated
13.09.2005 having regard to the law laid down by the judgement of the
Supreme Court rendered in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors.
Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) has allowed the said
revisions in part and held that the amount of royalty would be
recoverable with interest but no amount of cess would be recoverable
and accordingly issued direction to the respondent no.3.
21. The petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the revisional
authority, has filed petitions before the certificate officer seeking refund/
adjustment of the amount paid towards cess on royalty.
22. But the said petitions were rejected by order dated 27.12.2006
and 18.01.2007 respectively, thereafter petition labelling the same to be
a review petition, seeking review of the order dated 27.12.2006 [W.P (C)
No. 1870 of 2008] and order dated 18.01.2007 [W.P (C) No 1834 of
2008] and further calculate the amount in the light of the judgment and
order of the Commissioner after condoning the delay has been filed.
23. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the impugned
order dated 20.02.2008 which is the subject matter of both these instant
petitions.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State
Government was not entitled to collect the cess on royalty after 4th April
1991 and the Revisional Authority though held that the petitioner has to
pay royalty with interest but rightly ordered that cess on royalty is not
moveable from the petitioner and the Certificate Officer was directed to
act accordingly. Further, the said order of the Revisional Authority has not
been challenged before any Court and has thus attained finality.
25. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Authority holding
the petitioner is not liable to pay cess on royalty in the light of the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of District Mining
Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) had to
be given effect to and implemented by the certificate officer.
26. The learned counsel has further submitted that the certificate
officer had erred in not passing an order of refund / adjustment of the
amount deposited towards cess on royalty. Therefore, the retention of the
amount by the State Government is nothing but unjust enrichment and is
in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the
case of District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co.
Ltd & Anr. (supra).
27. The learned counsel has further submitted that while filing the
petition for review of the order dated 27.12.2006 and order dated
18.01.2007 in the cause title of the memorandum of petition as also the
impugned order reference has been made to the original certificate case
number, this however cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner
was seeking the review of the original orders. The petition which has
been placed at Annexure-3 [In W.P.(C) No.1870/2008] and the true
substance of the petition can be found out on a plain reading of the
same.
28. The learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid grounds has
submitted that the impugned order passed by the Certificate Officer
rejecting the petition be set aside and the Certificate Officer may be
directed to refund/ adjust the amount paid by the petitioner against the
demand of "cess on royalty along with interest forthwith or adjust the
equivalent amount.
Submission of the learned counsel for the State respondent
29. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
petitioner filed petition before the Certificate Officer for refund/adjustment
of the 40% deposit relating to Cess but the instant petition has not been
made a part of the instant writ application, and is not available before the
Hon'ble Court. The said petition was dismissed by the Certificate Officer
vide order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 but it is pertinent that the
instant order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 has also not been made
a part of the instant writ application, and is not available before the
Hon'ble Court. Thus, the petitioner has failed to bring on record all the
relevant and necessary documents in the instant case.
30. It has further been submitted that since the Petitioner has not
brought on record the petition filed before the Certificate Officer, hence, it
is unclear as to under what provision of law the said petition was filed
and what was the nature of the said petition, as such, adverse inference
on account of non-production of necessary documents and pleadings is
to be drawn against the petitioner in this view of the matter.
31. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that if the
Petitioner, was aggrieved by the Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007
and even if the Order dated 20.02.2008 (impugned Order), has the
alternative remedy of Appeal under Section 60 of the PDR Act against
the said Order. Hence the instant writ application is fit to be dismissed on
this ground alone.
32. The learned counsel has further contended that the disputed
questions of facts and calculations are involved in the instant case,
hence a writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of the law on this
score also.
Analysis
33. It is evident that the petitioner has Captive Limestones Mines at
the District Garhwa and Palamau. Certificate proceedings were initiated
by the Respondent No.2 (The Assistant Mining Officer) in the Court of the
Respondent No.3 (Dy Director, Mines-cum- Certificate Officer). These
Certificate cases were in respect of Royalty and Cess.
34. The petitioner's objection petitions filed u/s 10 Bihar & Orissa
Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 before the Respondent No.2 was
rejected.
35. Certificate Appeals were preferred before the Additional Collector,
and as per mandate of Section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand
Recovery Act, 1914, the petitioner deposited 40% of certificate amount in
each certificate case.
36. The said Appeals were dismissed vide Order dated 10.09.1996.
The petitioner preferred Revision before the revisional authority i.e.
Commissioner, and the learned Commissioner allowed the Revision in
part by Order dated 13.09.05 by holding that the amount of royalty with
interest would be recoverable but no amount of Cess would be
recoverable and issued direction to the Respondent No.3.
37. In the light of the order passed by the revisional authority the
petitioner filed petitions before the certificate officer seeking refund/
adjustment of the amount paid towards cess on royalty.
38. But, the said petitions were rejected by order dated 27.12.2006
and 18.01.2007 respectively, thereafter petition labelling the same to be
a review petition, seeking review of the order dated 27.12.2006 (W.P (C)
No. 1870 of 2008) and order dated 18.01.2007 (W.P (C) No 1834 of
2008) has been filed.
39. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the impugned
order dated 20.02.2008. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petitions
challenging the said Order dated 20.02.2008 passed in review
application by the certificate Officer.
40. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the revisional authority having regard to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors.
Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) held that after 4th April
1991 the State Government could not collect any amount towards cess
on royalty and therefore in the purview of the settled position of law the
order passed by Revisional Authority is binding on the state government
has also the officer subordinate to the Revisional Authority. But while
dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner for refund or adjustment of
statutory deposited amount, the said settled proposition of law has not
been taken care of by the authority concerned.
41. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent state has
contended that the Petitioner has not brought on record the Order dated
27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 passed by the Certificate Officer. The
impugned Order (Order dated 20.02.2008) was passed in the review of
the said Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007, and non-production of
the Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 makes the instant writ
petitions incomplete and liable to be rejected and adverse inference on
account of non-production of necessary documents and pleadings is to
be drawn in this view of the matter. It has further been submitted that the
disputed questions of facts and calculations are involved in the instant
case, hence a writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of the law on
this score also.
42. Before entering into merit of instant case, it needs to refer herein
the settled proposition of law that when the petition raises questions of
fact of complex nature, which may for their determination require oral
and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the party
concerned and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a
refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ
petition and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit.
Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors.
Vrs. Atmanand Singh and Ors., (2020) 6 SCC 256, wherein at
paragraph-22, it has been held as under:
"22. We restate the above position that when the petition
raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the
present case, which may for their determination require
oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved
by the party concerned and also because the relief sought
is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court
should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and
instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit.
Had it been a case where material facts referred to in the
writ petition are admitted facts or indisputable facts, the
High Court may be justified in examining the claim of the
writ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law."
43. It is the settled position of Law that the money claim which is
undisputed, there cannot be any hesitation in issuing direction by the
High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the
matter would be quite different if the claim is disputed by the concerned
respondent and in such situation, there cannot be any direction by the
writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue direction
upon the State authority to release the said amount. It is for the simple
reason that in case of disputed money claim it requires adjudication by
leading and then appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather the appropriate Forum
would be competent court of civil jurisdiction where the evidence, if led,
can well be considered for reaching to the rightful conclusion as has
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development
Authority and Anr. Vrs. Anupama Patnaik, (2000) 10 SCC 649.
Relevant passage is extracted from the aforesaid judgment and
reproduced as under :-
"3. It is rather strange that a simple claim for money was
made in a writ petition and was entertained by the High
Court and allowed. There are several disputed questions of
fact. Each party is alleging that the other party is guilty of
violation of the terms of the allotment. The matter is not
covered by any statutory provisions. The writ petition itself
was misconceived and not ought to have been entertained.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the
High Court is set aside. No costs."
44. Further, the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suganmal Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1740, wherein, it has been laid down at
paragraph-6 and 9 thereof that the position of law has been settled to the
effect that in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ
of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily
maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can
always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally
collected the money as a tax.
45. Further, in the case of Gunwant Kaur Smt. and Ors. Vrs.
Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors., (1969) 3 SCC 769, wherein at
paragraph-14, it has been laid down that when the petition raises
questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination
require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is
of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ
petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition, for ready reference,
paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"14. The High Court observed that they will not determine
disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts
were in dispute and what were admitted could only be
determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State.
The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition
in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to
entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in
considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact
may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226
the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and
law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary,
but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial
principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a
complex nature, which may for their determination require
oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High
Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately
be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try
a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be
justified, where the High Court is of the view that the
petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim
made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition
against the party against whom relief is claimed is not
maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that
it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or
for anologous reasons."
46. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case. It is evident from
perusal of record that vide order dated 13.09.2005 the revisional
authority has passed the order and hold that amount of royalty would be
recoverable with interest but no amount of cess would be recoverable.
For ready reference, the relevant part of aforesaid order is being referred
as under:
"इस वाद म नीलाम प पदािधकारी के ायालय आदे श को दे खने से
होता है िक नीलाम प बाद म सि िहत कुल 47,11,518.69
(संतालीस लाख ारह हजार पाँ च सौ अठारह पये उ र पैसे) म से
15,70,506.23 (प ह लाख स र हजार पाँ च सौ छः पये ते ईस पै से)
रॉय ी का बकाया रािश है तथा शे ष 31,41,012.46 (एकतीस लाख
एकतालीस हजार बारह पये घेयालीस पैसे) से स की रािश है । अपने
िल खत बयान म इ ोंने रॉय ी की रािश और इस पर दे य सूद की
रािश की वसूली पर कोई आपि नहीं िकया गया है ।
उभय प ों की सुनवाई एक ुत कागजातों के आधार पर यह
आदे श िदया जाता है िक रॉय ी की रािश अ तन दे य सूद की रािश के
साथ वसूलनीय होगी ले िकन सेस की रािश की वसूली नहीं की जायेगी।"
47. After the order of the Revisional authority, the petitioner has
preferred the petition before respondent no.3 praying to adjust the
amount deposited with him by way of statutory deposit in certificate
cases, but vide order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 the said petition
has been rejected by the Respondent No.3 against which the Review
Petition was preferred by the petitioner but the same has also been
dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2008. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the order dated 20.02.2008 is being quoted as under:
"उपयु तािलका म विणत तीनों व।दों म सपूण सेस की रािश
1,44,805.51 ० म से पूव म 57.922.00 ० का भु गतान
िकया गया है । पर ु से स म बची ई रािश को माननीय ायालय
आयु मडल, पलामू म पा रत आदे श के आलोक म दे य रािश
म स िलत नहीं िकया गया है ।
----- ----- ----- ------ ------ -----
मूल अिधयािचत रािश म से बच रहे सेस की रािश व मान म दे य
नहीं है , पर ु रॉय ी एवं उस पर अ तन सूद की रािश दे य ह।
ाज दर ावधान के अनुसार है । चूँिक दे नदार ारा कोई नया
िवषय नहीं रखा गया है , इसिलए पी०डी०आर० ए की धारा 63
के अ गत इस यािचका पर पुनिवचार करने की आव कता नहीं
है । इस िनणय की ितिलिप दे नदार एवं अिधयाचना पदािधकारी
को भेजते ए सरकारी राज की वसूली के िलए कारवाई की
जाय।"
48. It appears from the perusal of order dated 20.02.2008 that the
respondent no.3 while rejecting the Review Application has reiterated the
ratio of the order of revisional authority and observed that since no new
ground has been put forward by the petitioner/debtor therefore there is
no need to consider the aforesaid petition under section 63 of the Act
2015. It has further been observed that as per the order of learned court
of commissioner, amount which was due on account of royalty and
interest up to 31.03.2007 is payable and no demand for the balance
unpaid amount of cess is included in the said demand.
49. It needs to refer herein that the Certificate Officer vide order dated
27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 has rejected the petitions which was filed for
refund/adjustment of statutory amount has not been made a part of the
instant writ application, and is not available before this Court.
50. The respondent state has filed the counter affidavit wherein it is
categorically mentioned that learned Certificate Officer has reviewed the
application of the petitioner and rightly concluded that amount due on
account of royalty and interest up to 31.03.2007 is payable and no
demand for the balance unpaid amount of cess is included in the above
demand. Further, the order dated 20.02.2008 in explicitly clear and states
that the balance amount of royalty in all the certificate cases after
deducting the deposited amount in the year 1991 is not included in the
rest of the payable amount in the light of the order delivered by Divisional
Commissioner, in Revision on 13.09.2005.
51. Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the statutory
amount for which refund/adjustment has been sought for, is disputed,
reason being that, the respondent has stated that the demand has been
raised on account of royalty and interest payable up to 31.03.2007 and
no demand for the balance unpaid amount of cess is included in the said
demand.
52. Thus, this Court, in the backdrop of the discussion as has been
made hereinabove and taking into consideration the aforesaid settled
legal position that if the claim of the writ petitioner has been disputed,
then, there cannot be any direction by the writ Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to direct the respondent-State to release/adjust
the said amount, therefore, is of the view that the order impugned dated
20.02.2008, requires no interference.
53. In the result, the instant writ petitions fail and are, dismissed.
54. The liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to avail/search out
the appropriate remedy/forum for redressal of its grievance.
55. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
