Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 11 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4228 of 2006
Central Coalfields Ltd. ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II
-----
Order No.12: dated 11th February 2025
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, whereby and whereunder the entire certificate proceeding arising out of
Certificate Case No.01/2005-06 has been challenged.
2. The extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to the Court under Article 226 has
been invoked. The reason for invoking such jurisdiction, as per the pleading made
in the writ petition, is that the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction. The issue of
jurisdiction is based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court
rendered in the case of "Managing Director, National Coal Development
Corporation and etc. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.", reported in AIR 1984 Pat 280.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the law,
since, has already been laid down that once the land is vested in the Central
Government after the proceeding having been initiated and concluded under the
Coal Baring Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957, the State is having no
jurisdiction to treat the Central Government as a lessee resulting into recovery,
either of dead rent or surface rent.
4. Hence the writ petition has been filed questioning the very jurisdiction in
initiation of certificate proceeding based upon the judgment passed by the Patna
High Court.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Rahul Saboo appearing for the State based upon the
averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that on the identical issue, a
judgment has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy as under Section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the matter has been relegated to the appellate
authority to decide the issue on merit.
6. It has been contended that herein also the similar situation is, since, the writ
petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of notice under Sections 6 & 7 and the
objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has already been filed.
7. It has been contended that the filing of the objection under Section 9, is
being submitted on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, however,
no document on objection said to be filed as required to be filed under Section 9 of
Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.
8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears from
record that the certificate proceeding is initiated based upon the decision which was
taken by the authority concerned by coming out with the order of public demand as
stipulated under Section 3 of the Act, 1914 as per the schedule - 1 as contained
therein of the Act, 1914.
9. Further we have found a document appended as Annexure-4 to the petition,
which has been issued in purported exercise of power under the Act, 1914 and in
consequence thereof the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 had been issued,
but we have not found from the counter affidavit, the very basis of the application
made by the mining authority for the purpose of making requisition declaring a
particular amount which is to be paid by the writ petitioner in favour of the State
Government, while, section 4 and section 6 of the Act, 1914 provides that a
requisition is to be made by the authority concerned before the certificate officer
and after receipt of the said certificate, the certificate officer will issue notice under
Section 7 of the Act, 1914.
10. It is evident from Section 6 that it is not that the certificate officer will
mechanically issue notice under Section 7, rather the requisition will be received by
the certificate officer and he is satisfied with respect to the issue of public demand,
then only notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 is to be issued, meaning thereby
the proper consideration is required to be there with the certificate officer that is by
applying the quasi-judicial mandate, which is the mandate of statute.
11. We in order to consider the observance of the said statutory provision has
gone through the counter affidavit wherein no such document is found to be
available, however only the ground for dismissing the writ petition has been taken
that if the alternative remedy of the appeal is available, then why the writ petition is
being preferred.
12. It also needs to refer herein that from the record it is evident that there is no
ad-interim stay passed by this Court, in spite of that no decision has been taken by
the authority concerned.
13. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no
order has been communicated in this regard as of now and further there is no
instruction also from the State.
14. It is unfortunate that the proceeding had been initiated in the year 2006 and
after a lapse of about 19 years, it is still pending at the stage which was there at the
time of filing of the writ petition.
15. This Court in view thereof and for the purpose of proper adjudication of
issue needs to go through the original record.
16. Accordingly, let the original record be produced by the learned State counsel
on next date of hearing.
17. It is made clear that if any manipulation in the original record will be found,
the Court may direct to lodge FIR against the authorities concerned.
18. Let this matter be listed on 27th February 2025.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
