1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(C) No. 534 of 2018
                                  -----

Shah Brothers, a Partnership Firm, office at Sadar Bazar, P.O- Chaibasa, P.S-Sadar, District-West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) through one of its partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah ..... Petitioner

-Versus-

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Steel, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi and others ....... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Advocate Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate-General Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A.

Mr. Chanchal Jain, A.C to A.G.

For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv.

-----

06/13.06.2018 On 17.04.2018 the following order was passed by this Court:

"The petitioner, a partnership firm, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :

a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, upon the State Government, particularly Respondent no. 3, commanding it to issue Transit Challans to the petitioner forthwith;

b. For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no.1-Revisional Authority under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to hear and dispose of the Interim Application of the petitioner-Revisionist filed in terms of Rule-35(6) of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, for stay of demand dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure-5) contained in letter no. 1982/M in Revision Application No. 06/(01)/2017/ RC-I dated 18.12.2017.

2. At the outset, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the 2 petitioner has already availed statutory remedy under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

3. The petitioner has pleaded that on 10.07.1972 it was granted a non-captive lease for iron and manganese ore for a period of 30 years, and before expiry of the lease period it applied for renewal of the mining lease on 09.07.2001, however, no decision was taken by the respondent-State on the application for renewal. The petitioner was granted environmental clearance for quantity of 1,00,000 MT per annum on 23.01.2007, which was revised /modified on 19.07.2013 by which it was permitted mining to the extent of 8,00,000 MT per annum. In paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that it has been granted all statutory clearances, however, these documents have not been produced. In the chart appended to the demand notice dated 12.09.2017 it has been mentioned that the maximum permissible quantity of minerals to be mined, in terms of judgment in "Common Cause" [W.P.(C) No. 114 of 2014], was 382 MT per annum from 2000-01 till 2005-06, however, the petitioner has extracted mineral to the extent of 12,86,624 MT in the year 2005-06. Details of royalty and other statutory payments have not been disclosed by the petitioner.

4. Partner of the petitioner-firm namely, Sri Raj Kumar Shah, through whom this writ petition has been filed and supported by his affidavit, is directed to file his personal affidavit disclosing the amount of royalty, dead rent/ surface rent and all statutory taxes paid by the petitioner-firm since 2000-01, year-wise, with documentary proof thereof. The statutory clearances granted to the petitioner-firm under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, E.I.A., E.P.A., Pollution Control Board, approved mining plan, mining scheme etc. from 2000-01 to 2016 shall be produced along with the affidavit.

5. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand shall also file an affidavit disclosing the amount of royalty, dead-rent/surface 3 rent and other statutory payments made by the petitioner-firm from 2000-01 till 27.03.2017. In the affidavit, the respondent-Secretary shall also disclose the decision taken on the order of remand by the revisional authority through order dated 20.09.2017 to the demand raised by the State on 02.05.2015.

6. The petitioner has already approached the revisional authority challenging the demand notice dated 12.09.2017 which, it appears was taken up for hearing on 19.03.2018. In the writ petition one of the prayers made by the petitioner is to direct the revisional authority to hear the application for interim relief. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that several applications by the mining lease holders from the State of Jharkhand have been filed which are taken up for hearing together.

7. In the above facts, the revisional authority shall hear the petitioner's application in the 2nd week of May, 2018. In the meantime, the petitioner shall furnish all necessary details and documents within one week by filing supplementary affidavit to its Revision Application.

8. Post the matter on 15.05.2018.

9. Let a copy of order be given to the learned counsels for the parties."

2. In compliance of order dated 17.04.2018 now the parties have filed affidavits.

3. In the counter-affidavit the respondent-State has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has also taken a stand that in view of order dated 21.02.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7286 of 2017 and batch cases this writ petition may be referred to the larger Bench for consideration. However, referring to certain lessees in paragraph no. 13 of the counter-affidavit the respondent-State has taken a stand in paragraph no.14 that the petitioner-M/s Shah Brothers is similarly situated as other mining lease holders who have made part-payment of the demand raised against them. The petitioner claims that it has also made part-payment of the demand.

     4.           Now         by    an        order   dated     28.05.2018         the
     revisional   authority         has       quashed    the        demand    dated

12.09.2017, for non-payment of which the respondent-State has stopped issuing mining challans to the petitioner, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. At about the same time, that is, on 26.05.2018 a Three-men committee constituted by the respondent-State vide order dated 11.01.2018 has issued a direction to the D.M.O to correct the demand for financial year 2005-06 on the basis of official communication from I.B.M.

5. The respondent-State shall clarify the aforesaid stand taken in the counter-affidavit, particularly in paragraph nos. 14 and 19.

6. For seeking instructions on, whether the respondent-State intends to challenge the revisional order dated 28.05.2018 or not, the learned Advocate-General seeks adjournment.

7. Post the matter on 27.06.2018 under the heading "Final Disposal".

8. Let a copy of order be given to the learned counsels for the parties.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) sudhir