Jharkhand High Court

General Manger vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 10 November, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                           2025:JHHC:33665-DB



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P. (C). No.3853 of 2024
                               ------

General Manger, Lodna Area of M/s BCCL, P.O.-Jealgora, P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-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, Dist. -Dhanbad, PIN-828119 ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi

2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Dhanbad.

3. Assistant Mining officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Dhanbad ... ... Respondents

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

--------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate Mr. Praveen Tirkey, Advocate

For the State : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, AC to GP-V

--------

th Order No. 08/ Dated: 10 November, 2025

The affidavit in pursuance of Order dated 15.10.2025 has been filed. It has been stated therein that some delay has been caused in supplying the certified copy which is prima facie found to be due to the negligence on the part of the Clerk and against which the action has been taken.

2. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the certified copy has been supplied and the same has also been filed by way of a supplementary affidavit.

3. The surviving defect for which the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 13532 of 2025 has been filed for ignoring the defect,

2025:JHHC:33665-DB

therefore, is not being pressed.

4. Accordingly, I.A. stands disposed of.

5. Defect has been removed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23rd July, 2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 along with other batch cases.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that the matter may be disposed of in terms of order dated 23 rd July, 2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 along with other batch cases.

8. Considering the prayer so made that the instant Writ Petition is being disposed of in terms of order dated 23rd July, 2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 along with other batch cases and for the sake of convenience, the prayer made in the instant writ petition is being referred herein.

"(i)For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents No. 2 and 3 to certify and to send to this Hon'ble Court the records of Certificate Case No. 35/14-15 and to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 in certificate case No. 35/14-15 (Annexure-8); whereby the said respondent has illegally rejected the objection filed by the petitioner u/s 9 of the P.D.R. Act in utter disregard to the order/judgement dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9397/01 (Annexure-1), the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2535/2006 (Annexure-5) more particularly on remand although the same issue is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No. 77/2005;

(ii)For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

Factual Matrix

9. The brief facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-

2025:JHHC:33665-DB

i. It has been stated and submitted that the Central Government has nationalized all the coking coal mines in the country other than the captive mines by enacting Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972. On enacting the same, Central Government nationalized other non-coking coal mines besides the captive mines.

ii. It was alleged by the respondents that petitioner has shown less coal while recording the opening stock of coal from the closing stock of the immediate previous month by showing stock adjustment on physical verification of stock thereby alleging evasion of payment of royalty on such differed stock of coal. A certificate proceeding was instituted by the Respondent No. 3 before the Respondent No. 2.

iii. It is stated that in a similar demand for royalty on coal found to be short in physical stock, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9397 of 2001 held that the proper course of maintaining such demand by the Mining Officer would be to quantify the figure in respect of which, there are shortages arising out of (i) inflation or (ii) pilferage and only thereafter quantify the royalty payable after giving due deduction to the amount that has been paid in respect of coal/stone. iv. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 revised the certificate amount without determining as to whether royalty itself is payable.

v. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 6571 of 2004 but the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ application in limine on the ground that petitioner has a remedy of appeal under P.D.R. Act. The writ petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench vide LPA No. 77/2005. However, this Appeal was also dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy is available

2025:JHHC:33665-DB

against the order passed by the Certificate Officer. vi. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 6571 of 2004 and L.P.A. No. 77 of 2005, on the ground of alternative remedy and without entering into the merit of the case, in as much as no royalty u/s 9 would be payable on stock shortage/adjustment stock/over reporting etc., leave was granted and the appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2535 of 2006 and an order was also passed to the effect that no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of the impugned demand. The above Civil Appeal along with analogous cases was heard and disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India remanding the matter to this Hon'ble Court for fresh determination holding that the question of facts should be decided by the High Court. vii. The said L.P.A. No. 77 of 2005 along with the other appeals are being heard by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and while Civil Appeal No. 2535/2006 was pending, an audit team from the office of the Principal A.G. (Audit), Jharkhand gave an audit note to the effect that the closing/opening stock shown in the monthly return of March/April, 2011 revealed that actual stock of coal is far less than the closing/opening balance and therefore, it means that coal has been dispatched/consumed by the collieries but stocks were shown in monthly return only to evade royalty and the Respondent No. 3 without first raising a demand of less payment of royalty and/or calling upon the petitioner to explain/show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 61,38,000.00 towards principal and interest thereupon amounting to Rs. 46,64,880.00 totaling Rs. 1,08,02,880.00 be not recovered from Lodna Area being the difference of opening/closing balance of coal stock of 44640 MT of Grade-D Coal, Certificate Case No. 35/2014-15 was instituted by Respondent No. 3 before Respondent No. 2 by issuing

2025:JHHC:33665-DB

Certificate and Notice dated 05.08.2014 and upon receipt of Section 7 Notice, the petitioner appeared and filed its objection under Section 9 submitting that no royalty is payable. It is also submitted that identical matter was pending before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2535 of 2006 and an order of no coercive action has also been passed by the Apex Court. viii. It is also submitted that even though the present Certificate Case No. 35/2014-15 involved same question of fact and law as in L.P.A. No. 77 / 2005 and all of a sudden, without application of mind, rejected the objection filed by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount due together with upto date interest and Respondent No. 2 by its caution notice dated 12.06.2024 has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,16,31,139.00 by 30.06.2024 knowing fully well that several writ applications on the same issue including LPA No. 77 of 2005 and analogous cases are pending before this Hon'ble Court.

ix. It is further submitted that as the Respondent No. 2 has not applied its mind in the light of order/judgment dated 25.09.2003 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 9397 of 2001 as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in its order dated 10.12.2014 in C.A. No. 2535 of 2006 wherein the Apex Court has remanded the matter for determination of fact by this Court without relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal and revision under the P.D.R. Act, the petitioner left with no other option is moving this Court. Hence, this writ application.

10. This Court has gone through the order passed by the co- ordinate bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 along with other batch cases.

11. Considering the fact that there is identical nature of disputes involved in the present case and as such, the same is being disposed of

2025:JHHC:33665-DB

in terms of said order passing the following directions: -

"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 PDR Act.

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 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.