EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. They seek to challenge the attempt to recover the dead -rent from it under Section 9A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner approached this Court when certificate cases under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of such dead rent. On 6.3.2000. The Patna 'High Court disposed of the writ petitions observing that the petitioner had a remedy by way of revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, and that this being a dispute between a Government Company and the State of Bihar, the issue had to be decided in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. The Collector of Central Excise, 1998 Suppl. (2) SCC 432. The Court declined to go into the question on the ground that the dispute could not be resolved by the Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. This decision of the Patna High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. By order dated 9.4.2001, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Patna High Court on the ground that the High Court should have decided the writ petitions on merits and remanded the writ petitions of the High Court of Jharkhand for a decision on merits, since, by that time, the Bihar Re -organization Act, 2000 had come into force and the State of Jharkhand had come into being and the territorial jurisdiction vested in this Court. That is how these writ petitions are now before us.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though a right of appeal under the statute may be available, the plea raised was that the initiation of the proceeding itself was without jurisdiction and in view of the order of remand passed by the Supreme Court, this Court has to decide the writ petitions on merits.

(3.) SECTION 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 imposes an obligation on the holder of a mining lease to pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent and so on, from the leased area, at a rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral. Thus, the Eastern Coalfields Limited incurred an obligation to pay the royalty. Section 9A of that Act provided for payment of dead rent. Dead rent was payable as specified in the Third Schedule for all the area included in the instrument of lease. There is a proviso to Section 9A(1) of the Act. It provided that where the holder of a mining lease had become liable under Section 9 of the Act to pay royalty for any mineral removed or consumed by him. he shall be liable to pay either royalty or dead rent in respect of that area, which ever was greater. In other words, the liability to pay the dead rent arose when the royalty had not been paid in respect of any mineral removed from the leased area or the royalty payable in that behalf was less than the dead rent payable for the leased area as per the Schedule.