RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ applications challenge different certificate proceedings. Certificate Case No. 1481 of 2004 -05/55 of 2004 -05, Certificate Case No. 44 of 2007/2008, Certificate Case No. 8 of 2006 - 07. and Certificate Case No. 124 of 2007 -08, they were all instituted on requisition by the Mines Department for alleged failure to deposit royalty in relation to alleged brick -kilns run by them for various periods. Petitioners first dispute their liability alleging that before assessing their liability, no proceedings was duly initiated nor they were noticed or heard. On an ex parte appraisal demands were created and proceedings initiated for its recovery. When it came to the certificate proceedings in which they were duly noticed, they filed their objection, but, without considering them their objections were rejected and warrants of notices, wrongly recording service of notice warrants have been issued.

(2.) IN all the writ applications interlocutory applications have been filed for stay of proceedings. In my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ applications pending. Apparently, without due assessment of liability after notice to the petitioners liabilities have been worked out and proceedings for recovery initiated. It is too late in the day to suggest that even where people are wrongly winning minerals. When it comes to ascertainment of statutory liability, such ascertainment can only be done after due notice to the parties concerned and after hearing them. Creating a liability itself has civil consequences and it is well established that no adverse civil consequences cannot be created without giving a party an opportunity of hearing in that regards that is the minimal safeguard based on principles of natural justice. Thus, in my view, all these certificate proceedings and all actions taken thereunder would remain in abeyance. They would be dependent upon orders that will be passed by the District Mining Officer, who would be obliged to issue notice to the petitioners in respect of the periods, in question, with regard to fixation of their liabilities. On receipt of notices the petitioners would be obliged to file their show cause and after hearing the parties the District Mining Officer would adjudge their liability. Once liabilities are adjudged the petitioners would have their statutory remedy against the said order and subject to 18/4/2014 Page 225 Equivalent Citation:2009 -PLJR -1 -401 orders that may be passed in the statutory remedies. The certificate proceedings would then stand revive to the extent of liability, as determined by the District Mining Officer. Wherein, the petitioners would be required to file further objections and after deciding the same in accordance with law the Certificate Court would proceed afresh. The proceedings before the District Mining Officer shall be concluded within six months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before him, who would be obliged to disclose their proper address for the correspondence to the said authority, as well.

(3.) LET a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the Mines Department.