Central Coalfields Limited through Sri Manish Kumar… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2025)

Central Coalfields Limited through Sri Manish Kumar… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All consolidated matters disposed of by relegation to the respective Certificate Officers for fresh adjudication afresh on the objections already filed under section 9 of the PDR Act, to be concluded within three months; appellant in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 at liberty to file a section 9 objection; petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1031 of 2023 directed to file a fresh representation before the appropriate authority/forum; pending I.As, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the certificate proceedings demanding royalty with interest on alleged coal 'stock shortage', founded on differences between the petitioner-companies' monthly statements of royalty return/tentative volumetric assessments and the prescribed Form-H, are sustainable, and whether the impugned orders of the Certificate Officers/District Mining Officers rejecting the objections under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act are liable to be quashed. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

On the joint concession of the learned counsel for the parties that the disputed factual aspect required determination, the matters are relegated to the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh on the basis of the objections already filed under section 9 of the PDR Act.

Key takeaways

In L.P.A No.77 of 2005 the appellant/petitioner is at liberty to file an objection under section 9 of the PDR Act for consideration in accordance with law, the Court agreeing with the finding of the learned Single Judge (order dated 20.12.2004 in W.P.(C) No.6571 of 2004 directing recourse to the PDR Act remedy).ratio¶296
In W.P.(C) No.1031 of 2023, where a demand had been raised by the District Mining Officer but no certificate proceeding was initiated, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the appropriate authority/forum for redressal of its grievance.ratio¶300

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court (Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan with Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, author) — Order No.07 dated 23.07.2025 disposing of twenty-two consolidated matters (lead: L.P.A No.255 of 2001; also L.P.A Nos.288 of 2001 and 77 of 2005; C.W.J.C. Nos.8295, 8331, 8336 of 1999(P) and 756 of 2001; W.P.(C) Nos.1174, 1669, 2365, 2386, 2697, 3096, 3097, 3098, 3099 of 2020, 1366 and 1372 of 2022, 1031 of 2023, 1889 of 2023, 3801 and 3854 of 2024) filed by Central Coalfields Ltd., Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. against orders of Certificate Officers/District Mining Officers in Jharkhand rejecting objections under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and directing payment of royalty with interest on alleged coal 'stock shortage' computed from differences between the companies' monthly royalty returns/tentative volumetric assessments and Form-H statements (exemplar demand: Rs.25717594 plus interest of Rs.17487964, total Rs.43205558, in Certificate Case No. 30 of 2014-15). The Court noted the Supreme Court's order dated 25.09.2003 in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001 (shortages to be attributed to overreporting/inflation or pilferage per the Mishra Committee report, royalty quantified with deductions), the ad-interim order dated 03.04.2007 in Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 staying coercive steps, and the order dated 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.5908 of 2004 remanding some cases to this Court. Upon the joint concession of counsel that disputed questions of fact required determination, all matters were relegated to the respective Certificate Officers for fresh adjudication on the objections already filed under section 9 of the PDR Act, to conclude within three months; in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 the appellant was left free to file a section 9 objection (the Division Bench agreeing with the learned Single Judge's order in W.P.(C) No.6571 of 2004), and in W.P.(C) No.1031 of 2023 the petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation. Pending I.As disposed of.

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A No.255 of 2001

-----

M/s Central Coalfields Limited, a Government Company, having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi through its Project Officer, Kathara Colliery, District-Bokaro ……………… Petitioner / Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

The District Mining Officer, Bokaro

The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad ……………. Respondents

With

C.W.J.C. No.8295 of 1999(P)

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, A government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act having its registered Office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dissergarh, District-Burdwan, (West Bengal), through the General Manager, S. P. Mines, Chitra, District-Deoghar.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka.

The Assistant Mining officer, Deoghar.

……………. Respondents

With

C.W.J.C. No. 8331 of 1999(P)

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act having its registered office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dissergarh, District-Burdwan (West Bengal) through the General Manager, S. P. Mines, Chitra, District-Deoghar.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka

The Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar

……………. Respondents

With

C.W.J.C. No. 8336 of 1999(P)

M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Government of India Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act having its registered office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dissergarh, District-Burdwan (West Bengal) through the General Manager, S. P. Mines, Chitra, District-Deoghar.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka

The Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar

State of Jharkhand

……………. Respondents

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

With

L.P.A 288 of 2001

M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, a Government Company having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi through its Project officer/Dy. Chief Mining Engineer, Bhurkunda Project, P.O. P.S. Bhurkunda, district-Hazaribagh.

……………… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

The Certificate Officer (Mines), Hazaribagh

The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh

……………. Respondents

With

C.W.J.C. No. 756 of 2001

Project Officer, Urimari Open Cast Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Urimari, District-Hazaribagh.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Certificate Officer (Mines), North Chhotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh.

Assistant Mining Officer, Hazaribagh

……………. Respondents

With

L.P.A No. 77 of 2005

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S.-Saraidhella, District- Dhanbad, through its Area General Manager Bastacolla Area, Sri Arun Kumar Charanpahari, son of Sri Laxman Ram Charanpahari, at present residing at Bastacolla, P.O. P.S. Jharia, District-Dhanbad.

……………… Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Commissioner of Mines, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

The Certificate officer (Mining), Dhanbad Zone, Dhanbad.

District Mining Officer, Dhanbad.

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.1174 of 2020

Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Koyla Nagar, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its General Manager, Katras Area, Sri Jitendra Mallik, aged about 55 years, S/o Sri Bikram Singh Mallik, residing near Subhash Chowk, Dhanbad Tetulmari, PO- Tetulmari, PS- Tetulmari, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, PO & PSDoranda, District-Ranchi

2

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

The District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, PO, PS-Dhanbad, DistrictDhanbad

The Certificate Officer, Mines Circle, Dhanbad, PO, PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.1669 of 2020

Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Koyla Nagar, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its General Manager, Katras Area, Sri Jitendra Mallik, aged about 55 years, S/o Sri Bikram Singh Mallik, residing near Subhash Chowk, Tetulmari, POTetulmari, PS- Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)

District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S. & District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

The Certificate Officer, Mines Circle, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S. & District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.2365 of 2020

General Manager, Bastacola Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.&P.S.- Jharia, District- Dhanbad through Sri Soumen Chatterjee, aged 57 years, son of Late Govinda Chatterjee, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Jorapokhar, P.O. Jorapokhar, P.S. Jharia, District - Dhanbad, PIN-828111.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

The Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.2386 of 2020

The General Manager, Bastacola Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. & P.S.Jharia, District - Dhanbad through Sri Soumen Chatterjee, aged 57 years, son of Late Govinda Chatterjee, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Jorapokhar, P.O.-Jorapokhar, P.S.-Jharia, District - Dhanbad, PIN-828111.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

3

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District – Dhanbad

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.2697 of 2020

The General Manager, Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sonardih, P.S.-Maduban, District- Dhanbad through Sri Ram Ballabh Kumar, aged 59 years, son of Shri. Jaipati Kumar, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Sinidih, P.O.-Sonardih, P.S.- Madhuban, District-Dhanbad, PIN - 828125.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.3096 of 2020

The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.- Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad, through Shri Vishnu Kumar Goel, aged 56 years, son of late B.L. Goel, General Manager BCCL, Kusunda Area, R/o GM Bungalow, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih, DistrictDhanbad,

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.3097 of 2020

The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih, District- Dhanbad through Shri Vishnu Kumar Goel, aged 56 years, son of late B.L. Goel, General Manager, Kusunda Area, R/o GM Bunglow, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad, PIN 828116 ……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad

……………. Respondents

4

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

With

W.P.(C) No.3098 of 2020

The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Kusunda, P.S.- Kenduadih, District - Dhanbad through Sri Vishnu Kumar Goel, aged 56 years, son of Late B. L. Goel, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Pootki More, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad PIN - 828116.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.3099 of 2020

The General Manager, Block II Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Nawagarh, P.S.- Barora, District- Dhanbad through its General Manager Sri Dharmendra Mittal, aged 56 years, son of Sri Balkrishna Mittal, resident of Q. No. 18 Harina Bagan Colony, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S. - Barora, District - Dhanbad, PIN 828306. ……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.1366 of 2022

General Manager, Barora Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.Muraidih, District-Dhanbad through Sri Jitendra Malik, aged about 57 years, son of Shri Bikram Singh Malik, resident of Q/No. D-18, Harina Bagan Colony, Harina, P.O. - Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, District - Dhanbad, PIN - 828306.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.1372 of 2022

M/s. BCCL Borora Area, P.O. Nawagarh, P.S. Muraidih, DistrictDhanbad through its General Manager, Barora Area, Sri Jitendra Malik,

5

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

aged about 57 years, son of Shri Bikram Singh Malik, resident of Q/No. D-18, Harina Bagan Colony, Harina, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.-Barora, District - Dhanbad, PIN - 828306.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi. 2. Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.1031 of 2023

Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered Office at Darbhanga House, P.O.Ranchi University, P.S.- Kotwali District-Ranchi, through its Chief Manager (Min.)-cum-Project Officer, Topa RO- OCP(A) Mine, Kuju Area, CCL; Sri Manish Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Sri Gopal Prasad Sah, residing at Q. No. D-5, Parijat Colony, Kuju Area, PO- Kuju, PS- Mandu, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

……………… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, 2nd Floor, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand)

District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, PO + PS & District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

…………….Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.1889 of 2023

General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Khas Jeenagora, P.S. -Tisra, District- Dhanbad through Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 59 years, , Son of Late Kabilash Choudhary, resident of G.M. Bungalow, Lodna, P.O. – Bhaga, PS- Jharia, District - Dhanbad, PIN- 828301.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.3801 of 2024

General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.- Jealgora, P.S.Jharia, District- Dhanbad, PIN 826110 through Sri Nirjhar Chakraborty, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty, resident of

6

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

Officer's Bungalow, CFRI, Nalanda Gate, Digwadih, P.O. - Digwadih, P.S. - Jora Pokhar, District - Dhanbad, PIN - 828119.

……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. - Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

With

W.P.(C) No.3854 of 2024

General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O.-Jealgora PS-Jharia, District-Dhanbad, PIN-826110 through Sri Nirjhar Chakraborty, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty, resident of Officer's Bungalow, CFRI, Nalanda Gate, Digwadih, P.O.- Digwadih, P.S. Jora Pokhar, District - Dhanbad, PIN – 828119

.……………… Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.

Certificate Officer (Mines), Mining Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad. ……………. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

For the Petitioner-Appellant : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG

Order No.07 / Dated: 23^rd July, 2025

Per, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

The issues involved in these matters are the same and, as such, they are being heard and decided together with the consent of the parties.

In these matters, the similar issue involved is for quashing the order passed by the Certificate Officer/District Mining Officer of different districts of the State of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder the

7

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

objection filed by the petitioner/appellant has been rejected directing

the petitioner/appellant to pay the amount in question with interest.

Factual Matrix:

Since all these matters are similar and, as such, it will be proper to give the facts of one case so that that there is no reiteration of the facts.

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in one of the writ petitions being W.P (C) No.1174 of 2020 needs to refer herein which reads as under:

(i) It is pleaded that the petitioner-company is engaged in the business of mining and sale of coal.

(ii) It is pleaded that that for the purpose of mining coal, the petitioner-company has acquired various areas under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development Act) and have developed their own Mines.

(iii) It is pleaded that that under section 18A of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development Act), the petitionercompany is liable to pay an amount of royalty with respect to the coal mines by them.

(iv) It is pleaded that for the purpose of maintaining the records, initially at the stage of mining, a tentative statement of production is prepared for the internal records of the petitioner company. Such tentative statement is prepared on the basis of volumetric assessment of coal which is not a firm figure. Such statement bears the signature of only the Manager/Project Officer of the concerned colliery. Subsequently, a firm statement is prepared in Form-H of the Mineral Concession

8

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

Rules, which bears the signature of the members of the survey team constituted by the Coal India Limited besides the Manager, Project Officer, Area Survey Officer and Area General Manager of the concerned area, where the Mine is situated. This statement, which is prepared in Form-H, is the firm statement, which is binding upon the companies.

(v) It is pleaded that at the end of the year, the liability of the royalty is required to be reconciled on the basis of firm statement prepared by the team of survey officials constituted by the Coal India Limited besides the local officers being the Manager/Project Officer/Area Survey Officer and Area General Manager in prescribed form-H, With respect to Katras area, for the month of March, 2011, on the basis of tentative volumetric assessment and a quantity of 117818.706 metric ton of coal were shown in the closing balance. The statement of royalty was prepared on the basis of actual dispatch and was deposited in the month of April, 2011. The quantity of 117818.706 was a tentative volumetric assessment containing overburden, shell and Rs.25717594, on the basis of which, a certificate case was instituted being Certificate Case No. 30 of 2014-15 and notices were issued to the petitioner-company.

(vi) It is pleaded that on receipt of notice, an objection was filed under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act explaining that the entire facts mentioned hereinabove and mentioning therein that royalty on the actual production has already been paid and there has not been any shortfall of royalty.

9

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

(vii) It is pleaded that that the requisitioning officer then gave a reply to the said objection mainly stating therein that as there is a difference of 103791.706 tons of coal, that may be presumed to be removed/consumed and, accordingly, royalty is payable.

(viii) It is pleaded that the Certificate Officer thereafter without considering the facts stated hereinabove, in a most mechanical manner, simply by taking note of the difference of quantity mentioned in Form-H and the statement of royalty prepared by the Project Officer for the month of March, 2011, rejected the objection by order dated 19.02.2020 and directed the petitioner-company to pay an amount of Rs.25717594/- besides an interest of Rs.17487964, i.e., a total amount of Rs.43205558/-.

(ix) It is pleaded that the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2020 is bad in law, as well as on facts and is thus liable to be set aside.

(x) It is pleaded that the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the learned Certificate Office that in a similar matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 have restrained the State of Jharkhand from taking any coercive steps in the matter vide order dated 3.4.2007.

(xi) It is pleaded that the amount equivalent to royalty payable under section 18A of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development Act) is even otherwise not a public demand and as such the certificate proceeding itself was not maintainable on that count. This apart, the Certificate Officer after disposing the objection filed under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act is required to make a

10

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

determination on the basis of evidences or otherwise and in the instant case, barely by rejecting the objection filed under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, the Certificate Officer mechanically without making any determination directed the petitioner company to pay an amount of Rs.25717594 besides further amount of Rs.17487964 towards interest. Such direction in absence of any determination is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and on this count itself, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(xii) It is pleaded that the certificate proceeding on the strength of bare difference in the statement in the internal records of the petitioner company prepared by the Project Officer and in the statutory Form-H, the petitioner company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay additional royalty.

(xiii) It is pleaded that in absence of any evidence of actual production of coal, against which royalty is being demanded, the petitioner-company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay royalty on such quantity of coal.

(xiv) It is pleaded that in view of the fact that the statement in FormH was prepared by a survey team countersigned by the various authorities of BCCL on the basis of scientific measurement of weight, the respondent authorities in absence of any evidence cannot claim a difference of royalty on a difference of quantity mentioned in an unscientific volumetric assessment of coal made by the Project Officer in his tentative report.

11

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

(xv) It is pleaded that the amount payable under section 18A of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development Act) is a public demand.

(xvi) It is pleaded that in absence of any determination, the Certificate Officer is not justified in directing to pay the entire certificate dues along with interest.

Being aggrieved with the impugned order(s), the petitionerappellant have approached this Court by filing a bunch of writ petitions praying therein that the impugned order(s) being otherwise bad in law is, thus, liable to be set aside.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner(s)/Appellant:

In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:

(i) It has been contended that only because there was a difference in the closing balance shown in the monthly statement of royalty prepared by the Project Officer and in the prescribed Form, a requisition for certificate was filed by the Assistant Mining Officer/District Mining Officer of the respective districts of the State of Jharkhand for the recovery of the difference amount and on the basis of which in most of the cases certificate case was filed and notices were issued to the petitioner-company for the impugned demand.

(ii) It has been contended that on receiving the notice in most of the cases, the petitioner-company has already filed an objection under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 stating therein that there has not been any

12

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

shortfall of royalty as the royalty on the actual production has already been paid, but the Certificate Officer/District Mining Officer without appreciating this fact, in a most mechanical manner, has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner(s)/appellant to pay the amount involved in the Certificate Case with interest which is illegal and contrary to the law.

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has further contended that the authority concerned has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the PDR Act without taking into consideration to the order/judgement dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001 and the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in the Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 and, as such, the impugned order needs interference.

Submission on behalf of the respondent-State:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State to

defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:

(i) The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the same has been passed by the Certificate Officer/District Mining Officer of respective districts taking into consideration the fact that the shortage was found in the statement of the company.

(ii) It has been contended that these matters relate to stock shortage wherein it was found that there is shortage of stock of coal in the monthly statement of the company and in this regard the

13

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

report has been submitted by the concerned coal company in the prescribed format.

(iii) It has been contended that after finding the difference and taking into account the direction and guidelines issued by department, the Mining Officer calculated the amount payable to the department on account of stock shortage by multiplying the royalty issued for D grade coal and the coal found in short in the stock. It is submitted that a letter has been issued to the petitioner-company for depositing the amount but the same was not deposited by the petitioner and, therefore, in most of the cases a certificate case has been filed against the petitionercompany.

(iv) It has been submitted that the certificate officer after verifying the requisition and finding the same to be a public debt, has been pleased to issue notice to the petitionercompany and the petitioner-company has filed objection under section 9 of the Act. The Certificate Officer after appreciating the objection has been pleased to reject the objection of the petitioner-company and while passing the order has recorded the specific findings that there was shortage of coal in the stock.

(v) It has been contended that the petitioner-company is taking some contrary stand and even not denied the quantity of shortage.

The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts as stated above and, thus, the same

14

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

cannot be said to suffer from an error and, as such, the impugned order needs no interference.

Analysis

10.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

11.The issue involved in these matters relates to the certificate proceeding on the strength of difference in the statements in the records of the petitioner-company prepared by the officer concerned in the end of each month (monthly statement of royalty return) based on that proceeding has been started demanding royalty on the coal stock shortage.

It further appears from the factual aspect that the issue involves in these matters pertains to quashing of the order passed by the Certificate Officer in the Certificate Cases.

The issue has been agitated before this Court that while rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the PDR Act, the order/judgement dated 25.09.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001 and the judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed in the Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 has not been taken into consideration.

In the aforesaid context, the order dated 25.09.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001 is being referred herein as under:-

C.A. No. 9397/2001

“Both parties relied upon a report made by Mishra-Committee, in respect of the shortages in stocks in BCCL, appellant before us. After exhaustive consideration of the matter he concluded in Chapter VIII of that report that the shortages in coal stock should be primarily attributed to the overreporting of production of coal resulting in inflated figures in regard to production of coal. He also pointed out

15

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

that there was possibility of simultaneous pilferage resulting in shortages. On an earlier occasion when this matter had reached this Court, it was remanded to the mining officer. It was not only to look into the question as to whether the amount paid by the appellant by way of royalty was shortages but also on the question as to the extent they were liable to pay royalty. The mining officer though referred to the report of Mishra Committee did not examine the matter as had been analysed in that report. The proper course for him to do is to quantify the figures in respect of which there are shortages arising out of (1) Inflation or (II) pilferage and thereafter quantify the royalty payable giving due deductions to the amount that has been paid whether in relation to coal or stones.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It would be appropriate for the parties to appear before the District Mining Officer on 30^th October, 2003 and take further directions in the matter.”

Further, it appears from the order dated 03.04.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 which has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner whereby an ad-interim stay has been granted, for ready reference the said order is being quoted hereunder as:

ORDER

“Until further orders no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of the impugned demand.”

16.It further appears from the record that vide order dated 10.12.2014 passed in Civil appeal No.5908 of 2004 some of the cases have been remanded by the Hon’ble Apex Court to be listed before this Court for appropriate decision.

17.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties have submitted that since the disputed question of facts are involved herein and the disputed factual aspect of the matter is to be determined and, as such, it would be just and proper to relegate the

16

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

matter before the concerned original authority, i.e., the Certificate Officer so that the factual aspect may be appreciated and the appropriate order may be passed.

18.After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, the matter has already been remanded before this Court for passing the appropriate order, but as has been submitted and concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the factual aspect is to be determined and, as such, the better would be to relegate the matter before the original authority.

19.In view of aforesaid concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the parties , these matters are being relegated before the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh on the basis of the objection already filed under section 9 of the PDR Act.

20.It appears from the record that in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 the certificate proceeding has been initiated but objection under section 9 of PDR Act has not been filed. It further appears that the said appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2004 passed in W.P(C) N0.6571 of 2004 wherein the learned Single Judge while dismissing the said writ petition has directed the petitioner/appellant to avail remedy under the PDR Act.

This Court is in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge and, as such, the appellant/petitioner in L.P.A No.77 of 2005 is at liberty to file objection under section 9 of the PDR Act for its consideration in accordance with law.

Further, it appears from the record that in W.P(C) No.1031 of 2023 demand has been raised by the District Mining officer but no

17

2025:JHHC:20198-DB

certificate proceeding has been initiated and, as such, the petitioner in this case is hereby directed to file fresh representation before appropriate authority/Forum for redressal of its grievance.

23.In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the proceeding be concluded within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order which shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, these matters are disposed of.

Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Sudhir AFR

18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders of the Certificate Officer/District Mining Officer rejecting the objections filed under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and directing the petitioner/appellant to pay the certificate amount with interest (exemplar: order dated 19.02.2020 in Certificate Case No. 30 of 2014-15 directing payment of Rs.25717594 plus interest of Rs.17487964, total Rs.43205558).¶235
Certificate Officer / District Mining Officer (different districts of the State of Jharkhand) · 19.02.2020
Prior proceeding
Institution of Certificate Case No. 30 of 2014-15 on the basis of a tentative volumetric assessment showing closing balance of 117818.706 metric tons, and issuance of notices to the petitioner-company.¶230
Prior proceeding
Objection filed under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act explaining that royalty on actual production had already been paid and there was no shortfall.¶231
Prior proceeding
Requisitioning officer's reply alleging a difference of 103791.706 tons of coal presumptively removed/consumed, making royalty payable.¶234
Prior proceeding
Supreme Court order dated 25.09.2003 in Civil Appeal No.9397 of 2001: shortages to be attributed to overreporting/inflation or pilferage per Mishra Committee report, with royalty quantified giving due deductions.¶283
Prior proceeding
Supreme Court ad-interim order dated 03.04.2007 in Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2006 staying coercive steps on the impugned demand.¶287
Prior proceeding
Supreme Court order dated 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.5908 of 2004 remanding some of the cases to this Court for appropriate decision.¶288
Prior proceeding
L.P.A No.77 of 2005 filed against the order dated 20.12.2004 in W.P.(C) No.6571 of 2004, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to avail remedy under the PDR Act; no section 9 objection had been filed in the certificate proceeding.¶295

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
M/s Central Coalfields Limited¶5
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited¶12
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
Project Officer, Urimari Open Cast Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited¶50
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
appellant
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited¶59
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its General Manager, Katras Area (Sri Jitendra Mallik)¶69
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
The General Manager, Bastacola Area of M/s. BCCL (Sri Soumen Chatterjee)¶91
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
The General Manager, Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL (Sri Ram Ballabh Kumar)¶110
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
The General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL (Shri Vishnu Kumar Goel)¶118
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
The General Manager, Block II Area of M/s. BCCL (Sri Dharmendra Mittal)¶145
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
General Manager, Barora Area of M/s. BCCL (Sri Jitendra Malik)¶152
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
M/s. BCCL Borora Area (through General Manager, Barora Area, Sri Jitendra Malik)¶161
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
Central Coalfields Limited (through Sri Manish Kumar, Topa RO-OCP(A) Mine, Kuju Area)¶172
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL (Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha)¶181
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
petitioner
General Manager, Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL (Sri Nirjhar Chakraborty)¶189
Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kumar Sinha
respondent
The State of Jharkhand¶7
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The State of Bihar¶33
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand¶73
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
Commissioner of Mines, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi¶63
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The District Mining Officer, Bokaro¶8
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad¶9
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The Certificate Officer (Mines), Dumka¶16
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The Assistant Mining officer, Deoghar¶17
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
Certificate Officer (Mines), North Chhotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh¶54
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The Certificate Officer (Mines), Hazaribagh¶45
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
Assistant Mining Officer, Hazaribagh¶55
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh¶46
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The District Mining Officer, Dhanbad¶76
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
The Certificate Officer, Mines Circle, Dhanbad¶77
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
Assistant Mining Officer, Dhanbad¶96
Piyush Chitresh
respondent
District Mining Officer, Ramgarh¶177
Piyush Chitresh

Coram

AI extract

Tarlok Singh Chauhanmember¶304
Sujit Narayan Prasadauthor¶212