SHAH BROTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, a common prayer for a direction upon the respondent-State to issue Transit Challans to the petitioners has been made. Initially, another prayer seeking a direction upon the Revisional Authority to hear and dispose of the interim applications filed by the petitioners in their Revision Applications was also made, however, after the Revisional Authority has passed final orders dated 28.05.2018/07.06.2018, this prayer has been rendered infructuous.

(2.) In W.P.(C) No.534 of 2018, Mr. Navaniti Pd. Singh, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Krishanu Ray, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner. In W.P.(C) No.790 of 2018 & W.P.(C) No.798 of 2018, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appears for the petitioners. The respondent-State is represented through Mr. Ajit Kumar, the leaned AdvocateGeneral assisted by Mr. Chanchal Jain, the learned AC to AG.

(3.) Contention raised by Mr. Navaniti Pd. Singh, the learned Senior counsel is that after the Revisional Authority has quashed the demand notice dated 12.09.2017 vide its order dated 28.05.2018 there is no demand for compensation under section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, for non-payment of which the respondent State can withhold Transit Challans to the petitioner-Shah Brothers. Continuing in the same vein, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner-M/s Nirmal Kumar Pradeep Kumar (in the other two writ petitions) referring to the decision in "Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs Church of South India Trust Association CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras, 1992 3 SCC 1" (paragraph no.-10) submits that effect of the revisional orders dated 28.05.2018 and 07.06.2018 is that today there is no demand in existence, and therefore status-quo ante when Transit Challans were issued to the petitioners must be restored. The learned counsel further submits that the demand notices issued to the petitioners suffer from patent factual errors, inasmuch as, in view of the judgment in "Goa Foundation vs Union of India & Ors., 2014 6 SCC 590" (paragraph no.85) the petitioners are entitled for deduction of approximate cost of production from the impugned demands which have been issued by the respondent-State. Another plea raised by the petitioners is that orders of the Revisional Authority by which the impugned demand notices have been quashed are passed in exercise of statutory powers conferred upon the Revisional Authority, which cannot be over-ruled or modified by an executive exercise (3-Men Committee). Besides the above, it is also contended that hearing by the 3-Men Committee constituted by an order dated 11.01.2018 is not, infact, compliance of the principles of natural justice for several other factual aspects need to be considered by the respondentState while quantifying the alleged compensation under section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.