Dismissed

M/S Steel Authority of India L v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Nov 2024WPC/1834/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where the claim of the petitioner is disputed by the State and requires adjudication with evidence, no direction can be issued by the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution to refund or adjust money; such relief is ordinarily granted only where the money claim is undisputed. Relying on Suganmal, Gunwant Kaur, HUDA v. Anupama Patnaik and Punjab National Bank v. Atmanand Singh, the Court refused to interfere with the Certificate Officer's order refusing refund of statutory deposits towards cess on royalty, holding that the demand now raised was only royalty with interest up to 31.03.2007. Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy.

What the court decided

M/S Steel Authority of India L Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1870 of 2008

¶2

------

¶3

M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd having its registered office at Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi and one of its captive mines at Bhawnathpur under the Raw Material Division P.O. & P.S. Bhawnathpur Township District Garhwa, Jharkhand Through G.M. (Flux), Raw Materials Division Sri H.S. Prasad, S/O Lt Gagannath Prasad …. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The State of Jharkhand (through Secretary of Mines Government of Jharkhand)

¶6

2. The Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa.

¶7

3. The Dy. Director-Mines Cum Certificate Officer, Palamau Division at and Post Doltaganj, District Palamau.

¶8

.... .... Principal Respondents

¶9

4. The Additional Collector, Garhwa at & Post Garhwa.

¶10

5. The Commissioner, Palamau Division at & Post Doltanganj District Palamau .... .... Proforma Respondents With

¶11

W.P.(C) No.1834 of 2008

------

…. …. Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand (through Secretary of Mines Government of Jharkhand)

¶17

2. The Assistant Mining Officer, Garhwa.

¶18

3. The Dy. Director Mines cum Certificate Officer, Palamau Division at and Post Doltaganj, District Palamau.

¶19

.... .... Principal Respondents

¶20

4. The Additional Collector, Garhwa at & Post Garhwa.

¶21

5. The Commissioner, Palamau Division at & Post Doltanganj District Palamau .... .... Proforma Respondents

¶22

CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V

¶23

¶24

------

¶25

CAV on 01.10.2024 Pronounced on 12 /11/2024

¶26

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 1870 of 2008

¶28

This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the Impugned order dated 20-02-2008 passed by the Dy. Director Mines-cumCertificate Officer passed in Review Application in Case No. 16/ 88-89, 17/88-89, 25 (MP)/88-89 whereby and whereunder the refund of the 40% of the Certificate amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards the Certificate amount of Cess pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 1914) to pursue its Appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa Dy. Director Mines-cum- Certificate Officer has been refused to be refunded.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 1834 of 2008

¶30

2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 20-02-2008 passed by the Dy. Director Mines-cumCertificate Officer passed in Review Application in Case No. 61/ (90-91), 09/(91-92), 10/(91-92), whereby and whereunder the refund of the 40% of the Certificate amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards the Certificate amount of Cess pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 1914) to pursue its Appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa Dy. Director Mines-cum- Certificate Officer has been refused to be

refunded.

Factual Matrix

3. Since, it appears that the issues involved in the both of these of writ petitions are identical, as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶35

4. From perusal of the prayers of these writ petitions it is evident that in both these petitions the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the certificate officer refusing to refund the amount deposited in terms of Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 ("PDR Act) for preferring an appeal.

¶36

5. Certificate cases were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of cess on royalty. The certificates case no. 61 of 1990-91 and certificate case no 10 of 1991-92 were instituted for demand of royalty and cess over the stock differences of Lime stone and Dolomite, whereas certificate case no. 09 of 1991-92 was filed for recovery of interest against certificate case no. 61 of 1990-91 which form the subject matter of WPC No. 1834 of 2008 and certificate proceeding in respect of payment of royalty and cess and case was registered and marked as Misc. Case No. 16/88-89, Misc. Case No. 17/88-89 and Misc. Case No. 25(MP)/88-89 which are subject matter of WPC No. 1870 of 2008 respectively.

¶37

6. In the aforesaid certificate cases the certificate officer while observing that the petitioner is liable to pay cess on royalty has rejected

¶38

¶39

the objection petitions filed by the petitioner.

¶40

7. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal against the orders passed by the certificate officer before the appellate authority in terms of section 60 of the PDR Act 1914 and the petitioner has deposited the statutory amount in terms of second proviso to section 60(1) off the PDR Act wherein it is stipulated that an appeal would not be entertained unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has paid 40% of the amount determined under section 10 or such amount as the appellant admits to be due from him, whichever is greater.

¶41

8. In view of the above statutory provision the writ petitioner/appellant deposited the following amount and has preferred an appeal against the order of respondent no.2.

¶42

WP(C) No. 1870 of 2008

¶43

Serial	Case	Amount
1.	Mise Case No. 16/88-89	Rs. 4648.00
2.	Misc. Case No. 17/88-89	Rs. 38,177,00
3.	Misc. Case No.25(MP)/88-89	Rs 35,008.00

¶44

WP(C)No. 1834 of 2008

¶45

Serial	Case	Amount
1.	Case No. 61/90-91-	Rs. 2,23,112.00
2.	Case No 09/91-92-	Rs. 9,00,000.00
3.	Case No. 10/91-92	Rs.20,00,000.00

¶46

9. The appeals filed by the writ petitioner were registered as

¶47

¶48

Certificate Appeal No. XV/1 of 91-92, XV/2 of 91-92, XV/3 of 91-92, (in W.P.(C) No. 1870 of 2008) and Certificate Appeal No XV/6 of 93-94, XV/144 of 92-93, XV/5 of 93-94, (in W.P.(C) No. 1834 of 2008) but all these appeals were dismissed vide order dated 10.09.1996.

¶49

10. Consequently, a revision in terms of section 62 of the PDR act against order dated 10.09.1996 was filed before the collector-deputy commissioner (respondent no.5) which were registered as Certificate Revision No. 175 of 1996, 176 of 1996 and 177 of 1996 respectively (in W.P.(C) No. 1870 of 2008) and Certificate Revision No. 173 of 1996, 174 of 1996 and 175 of 1996 respectively (in W.P.(C) No. 1834 of 2008). 11. Vide order dated 13.09.2005 the revisional authority (respondent no.5) having regard to the law laid down by the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 358 has allowed the said revisions in part and held that the amount of royalty would be recoverable with interest but no amount of cess would be recoverable and accordingly issued direction to the respondent no.3.

¶50

12. It is the case of the petitioner that in the light of the order passed by the revisional authority the petitioner was entitled to get refund of this amount paid towards cess on royalty or the said amount had to be adjusted towards payment of royalty. Further in the light of the observation made by the Revisional Authority that the Certificate Officer is to act according to its order, it appears that the petitioner filed petitions before the certificate officer seeking refund/ adjustment of the amount

¶51

¶52

paid towards cess on royalty.

¶53

13. But the said petitions were rejected by order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007, thereafter petition labelling the same to be a review petition, seeking review of the order dated 27.12.2006 (W.P (C) No. 1870 of 2008) and order dated 18.01.2007 (W.P (C) No 1834 of 2008) and further calculate the amount in the light of the judgment and order of the Commissioner after condoning the delay has been filed.

¶54

14. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 which is the subject matter of both these instant petitions.

¶55

15. Hence, these writ petitions have been preferred.

¶56

16. From the factual aspects it is evident that in both these petitions the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the certificate officer refusing to refund the amount deposited in terms of Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 ("PDR Act) for preferring an appeal.

¶57

17. It is evident that earlier Certificate cases were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of cess on royalty. In the aforesaid certificate cases the certificate officer while observing that the petitioner is liable to pay cess on royalty has rejected the objection petitions filed by the petitioner.

¶58

18. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal against the orders passed by the certificate officer before the appellate authority in terms of section 60 of the PDR Act 1914 and the petitioner has deposited the

¶59

¶60

statutory amount in terms of second proviso to section 60(1) off the PDR Act.

¶61

19. The appeals filed by the writ petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 10.09.1996. Consequently, a revision in terms of section 62 of the PDR act against order dated 10.09.1996 was filed before the collectordeputy commissioner (respondent no.5).

¶62

20. The revisional authority (respondent no.5) vide order dated 13.09.2005 having regard to the law laid down by the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) has allowed the said revisions in part and held that the amount of royalty would be recoverable with interest but no amount of cess would be recoverable and accordingly issued direction to the respondent no.3.

¶63

21. The petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the revisional authority, has filed petitions before the certificate officer seeking refund/ adjustment of the amount paid towards cess on royalty.

¶64

22. But the said petitions were rejected by order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 respectively, thereafter petition labelling the same to be a review petition, seeking review of the order dated 27.12.2006 [W.P (C) No. 1870 of 2008] and order dated 18.01.2007 [W.P (C) No 1834 of 2008] and further calculate the amount in the light of the judgment and order of the Commissioner after condoning the delay has been filed.

¶65

23. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 which is the subject matter of both these instant

¶66

¶67

petitions.

¶68

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶69

24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Government was not entitled to collect the cess on royalty after 4^th April 1991 and the Revisional Authority though held that the petitioner has to pay royalty with interest but rightly ordered that cess on royalty is not moveable from the petitioner and the Certificate Officer was directed to act accordingly. Further, the said order of the Revisional Authority has not been challenged before any Court and has thus attained finality.

¶70

25. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Authority holding the petitioner is not liable to pay cess on royalty in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) had to be given effect to and implemented by the certificate officer. 26. The learned counsel has further submitted that the certificate officer had erred in not passing an order of refund / adjustment of the amount deposited towards cess on royalty. Therefore, the retention of the amount by the State Government is nothing but unjust enrichment and is in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra).

¶71

27. The learned counsel has further submitted that while filing the petition for review of the order dated 27.12.2006 and order dated 18.01.2007 in the cause title of the memorandum of petition as also the

¶72

¶73

impugned order reference has been made to the original certificate case number, this however cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner was seeking the review of the original orders. The petition which has been placed at Annexure-3 [In W.P.(C) No.1870/2008] and the true substance of the petition can be found out on a plain reading of the same.

¶74

28. The learned counsel on the basis of the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Certificate Officer rejecting the petition be set aside and the Certificate Officer may be directed to refund/ adjust the amount paid by the petitioner against the demand of "cess on royalty along with interest forthwith or adjust the equivalent amount.

¶75

Submission of the learned counsel for the State respondent

¶76

29. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner filed petition before the Certificate Officer for refund/adjustment of the 40% deposit relating to Cess but the instant petition has not been made a part of the instant writ application, and is not available before the Hon'ble Court. The said petition was dismissed by the Certificate Officer vide order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 but it is pertinent that the instant order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 has also not been made a part of the instant writ application, and is not available before the Hon'ble Court. Thus, the petitioner has failed to bring on record all the relevant and necessary documents in the instant case.

¶77

30. It has further been submitted that since the Petitioner has not

¶78

¶79

brought on record the petition filed before the Certificate Officer, hence, it is unclear as to under what provision of law the said petition was filed and what was the nature of the said petition, as such, adverse inference on account of non-production of necessary documents and pleadings is to be drawn against the petitioner in this view of the matter.

¶80

31. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that if the Petitioner, was aggrieved by the Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 and even if the Order dated 20.02.2008 (impugned Order), has the alternative remedy of Appeal under Section 60 of the PDR Act against the said Order. Hence the instant writ application is fit to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶81

32. The learned counsel has further contended that the disputed questions of facts and calculations are involved in the instant case, hence a writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of the law on this score also.

¶82

Analysis

¶83

33. It is evident that the petitioner has Captive Limestones Mines at the District Garhwa and Palamau. Certificate proceedings were initiated by the Respondent No.2 (The Assistant Mining Officer) in the Court of the Respondent No.3 (Dy Director, Mines-cum- Certificate Officer). These Certificate cases were in respect of Royalty and Cess.

¶84

34. The petitioner's objection petitions filed u/s 10 Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 before the Respondent No.2 was rejected.

¶85

¶86

35. Certificate Appeals were preferred before the Additional Collector, and as per mandate of Section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, the petitioner deposited 40% of certificate amount in each certificate case.

¶87

36. The said Appeals were dismissed vide Order dated 10.09.1996. The petitioner preferred Revision before the revisional authority i.e. Commissioner, and the learned Commissioner allowed the Revision in part by Order dated 13.09.05 by holding that the amount of royalty with interest would be recoverable but no amount of Cess would be recoverable and issued direction to the Respondent No.3.

¶88

37. In the light of the order passed by the revisional authority the petitioner filed petitions before the certificate officer seeking refund/ adjustment of the amount paid towards cess on royalty. 38. But, the said petitions were rejected by order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 respectively, thereafter petition labelling the same to be a review petition, seeking review of the order dated 27.12.2006 (W.P (C) No. 1870 of 2008) and order dated 18.01.2007 (W.P (C) No 1834 of 2008) has been filed.

¶89

39. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.02.2008. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petitions challenging the said Order dated 20.02.2008 passed in review application by the certificate Officer.

¶90

40. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority having regard to the law laid down by the

¶91

¶92

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Ors.

¶93

Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd & Anr. (supra) held that after 4^th April 1991 the State Government could not collect any amount towards cess on royalty and therefore in the purview of the settled position of law the order passed by Revisional Authority is binding on the state government has also the officer subordinate to the Revisional Authority. But while dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner for refund or adjustment of statutory deposited amount, the said settled proposition of law has not been taken care of by the authority concerned.

¶94

41. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent state has contended that the Petitioner has not brought on record the Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 passed by the Certificate Officer. The impugned Order (Order dated 20.02.2008) was passed in the review of the said Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007, and non-production of the Order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 makes the instant writ petitions incomplete and liable to be rejected and adverse inference on account of non-production of necessary documents and pleadings is to be drawn in this view of the matter. It has further been submitted that the disputed questions of facts and calculations are involved in the instant case, hence a writ petition is not maintainable in the eyes of the law on this score also.

¶95

42. Before entering into merit of instant case, it needs to refer herein the settled proposition of law that when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, which may for their determination require oral

¶96

¶97

and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the party concerned and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vrs. Atmanand Singh and Ors., (2020) 6 SCC 256 , wherein at paragraph-22, it has been held as under:

¶98

“22. We restate the above position that when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the party concerned and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit. Had it been a case where material facts referred to in the writ petition are admitted facts or indisputable facts, the High Court may be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law.”

¶99

43. It is the settled position of Law that the money claim which is undisputed, there cannot be any hesitation in issuing direction by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the matter would be quite different if the claim is disputed by the concerned

¶100

¶101

respondent and in such situation, there cannot be any direction by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue direction upon the State authority to release the said amount. It is for the simple reason that in case of disputed money claim it requires adjudication by leading and then appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather the appropriate Forum would be competent court of civil jurisdiction where the evidence, if led, can well be considered for reaching to the rightful conclusion as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. Vrs. Anupama Patnaik, (2000) 10 SCC 649 . Relevant passage is extracted from the aforesaid judgment and reproduced as under :-

¶102

“3. It is rather strange that a simple claim for money was made in a writ petition and was entertained by the High Court and allowed. There are several disputed questions of fact. Each party is alleging that the other party is guilty of violation of the terms of the allotment. The matter is not covered by any statutory provisions. The writ petition itself was misconceived and not ought to have been entertained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.”

¶103

44. Further, the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suganmal Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1740 , wherein, it has been laid down at

¶104

¶105

paragraph-6 and 9 thereof that the position of law has been settled to the effect that in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax.

¶106

45. Further, in the case of Gunwant Kaur Smt. and Ors. Vrs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors., (1969) 3 SCC 769 , wherein at paragraph-14, it has been laid down that when the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition, for ready reference, paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶107

“14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226

¶108

¶109

the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for anologous reasons.”

¶110

46. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case. It is evident from perusal of record that vide order dated 13.09.2005 the revisional authority has passed the order and hold that amount of royalty would be recoverable with interest but no amount of cess would be recoverable. For ready reference, the relevant part of aforesaid order is being referred as under:

¶111

“इसवादम७नीलामपআपदािधकारीके�ायालयआदेशकोदेखनेसे �� होता हैिक नीलाम पআ बाद म७ सि�िहत कुल 47,11,518.69 ( संतालीसलाख৓ारहहजारपाँचसौअठारहॹपयेउ��रपैसे ) म७से

¶112

¶113

15,70,506.23 ( प�हलाखस�रहजारपाँचसौछः ॺपयेतेईसपैसे ) रॉय�ीकाबकायारािशहैतथाशेष 31,41,012.46 ( एकतीसलाख एकतालीसहजारबारहॹपयेघेयालीसपैसे ) सेसकीरािशहै।अपने िल्खत बयानम७इ�ोंनेरॉय�ीकीरािश औरइस परदेय सूदकी रािशकीवसूलीपरकोईआपि�नहींिकयागयाहै। उभय प঴ोंकीसुनवाईएक ঋ�ुत कागजातोंकेआधार पर यह आदेशिदयाजाताहैिकरॉय�ीकीरािशअ�तनदेयसूदकीरािशके साथवसूलनीयहोगीलेिकनसेसकीरािशकीवसूलीनहींकीजायेगी।“ 47. After the order of the Revisional authority, the petitioner has preferred the petition before respondent no.3 praying to adjust the amount deposited with him by way of statutory deposit in certificate cases, but vide order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 the said petition has been rejected by the Respondent No.3 against which the Review Petition was preferred by the petitioner but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2008. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the order dated 20.02.2008 is being quoted as under:

¶114

“उपयु१ঢ तािलका म७विण१त तीनोंव।दोंम७सपूण१सेस कीरािश 1,44,805.51 ॹ० म७ से पूव१ म७ 57.922.00 ॹ० का भुगतान िकयागयाहै।पर�ुसेसम७बचीॽईरािशकोमाननीय�ायालय आयुঢঋमडल , पलामूम७पाौरतआदेशकेआलोकम७देयरािश म७स्�िलतनहींिकयागयाहै।

¶115

----- ----- ---------- ---------- मूलअिधयािचतरािशम७सेबचरहेसेसकीरािशव�मा१नम७देय नहींहै , पर�ु रॉय�ीएवंउस पर अ�तनसूदकीरािशदेयह॰। �ाज दर ঋावधान केअनुसार है। चूँिक देनदार �ारा कोईनया िवषयनहींरखागयाहै , इसिलएपी०डी०आर०एঠकीधारा 63 केअ�ग१तइसयािचकापरपुन१िवचारकरनेकीआव�कतानहीं है। इस िनण१य कीঋितिलिप देनदारएवंअिधयाचना पदािधकारी कोभेजतेॽए सरकारीराज� कीवसूलीकेिलए कार१वाईकी जाय।“

¶116

48. It appears from the perusal of order dated 20.02.2008 that the respondent no.3 while rejecting the Review Application has reiterated the ratio of the order of revisional authority and observed that since no new ground has been put forward by the petitioner/debtor therefore there is

¶117

¶118

no need to consider the aforesaid petition under section 63 of the Act 2015. It has further been observed that as per the order of learned court of commissioner, amount which was due on account of royalty and interest up to 31.03.2007 is payable and no demand for the balance unpaid amount of cess is included in the said demand.

¶119

49. It needs to refer herein that the Certificate Officer vide order dated 27.12.2006 and 18.01.2007 has rejected the petitions which was filed for refund/adjustment of statutory amount has not been made a part of the instant writ application, and is not available before this Court.

¶120

50. The respondent state has filed the counter affidavit wherein it is categorically mentioned that learned Certificate Officer has reviewed the application of the petitioner and rightly concluded that amount due on account of royalty and interest up to 31.03.2007 is payable and no demand for the balance unpaid amount of cess is included in the above demand. Further, the order dated 20.02.2008 in explicitly clear and states that the balance amount of royalty in all the certificate cases after deducting the deposited amount in the year 1991 is not included in the rest of the payable amount in the light of the order delivered by Divisional Commissioner, in Revision on 13.09.2005. 51. Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the statutory amount for which refund/adjustment has been sought for, is disputed, reason being that, the respondent has stated that the demand has been raised on account of royalty and interest payable up to 31.03.2007 and no demand for the balance unpaid amount of cess is included in the said

¶121

¶122

demand.

¶123

52. Thus, this Court, in the backdrop of the discussion as has been made hereinabove and taking into consideration the aforesaid settled legal position that if the claim of the writ petitioner has been disputed, then, there cannot be any direction by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent-State to release/adjust the said amount, therefore, is of the view that the order impugned dated 20.02.2008, requires no interference.

¶124

53. In the result, the instant writ petitions fail and are, dismissed.

¶125

54. The liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to avail/search out the appropriate remedy/forum for redressal of its grievance.

¶126

55. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶127

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶128