M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. The State of Jharkhand

------- CORAM:HON’BLEMR. JUSTICESUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Petitioner For the Resp-State ------- :Mr.Indrajit Sinha, Advocate :Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate :Mr.Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II ------ Order No.06/Dated25thAugust, 2025

1. Since Similar issues are involved in both the Writ Petitions as such both the writ petitions have been heard together and disposed of by this Common order. Both these writ petitions have been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the demand notice dated 14.09.2009 as contained in letter Nos.2705 (W.P.(C) 1666 of 2011) and 2703(W.P.(C) 1685of 2011).

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of one of writ petition being W.P.(C) 1666 of 2011is referred herein. The prayer portion of the W.P.(C) 1666 of 2011 is being referred as under: (i)An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the demand notice as contained in letter Nos.2705, dated 14.09.2009 issued by the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.44,53,37,811/-on account of alleged short payment of royalty on clean/washed coal and non-payment of royalty on bye products such as middlings, slurry and rejects. (ii) A further writ, order or direction for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Certificate Case No.3/2010-11, whereby a sum of Rs.51,47,78,215/-is sought to be recovered from the petitioner on account of alleged short payment of royalty on clean/washed coal and non-payment of royalty on bye products such as middlings, slurry and rejects. Factual Matrix

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions which are common in nature and require to be enumerated, reads as under:- The petitioner is a Government Company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, pursuant the promulgation of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, and the legal framework created thereunder, the petitioner came to acquire and operate several coal mines in the States of Jharkhand and West Bengal. Among these, the petitioner holds mining leases covering an area of 7102.29 acres and 597.32 acres for its Murlidih Colliery, situated within the Western Jharia Area. The petitioner has developed these coal mines for the purpose of coal extraction, which serves as a critical raw material for key industries such as steel and power. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both writ petitions has submitted that, in the present case as well, the demand notice has been issued without compliance with the principles of natural justice.

5. It has further been submitted that identical matters have been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2017 and other analogous cases. Those writ petitions were disposed of by remitting the matters before District/Assistant Mining Officer of the respective district, as such, submission has been made to dispose of these writ petitions as well, in terms of the order already passed in W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2017 and other analogous cases. Response of the learned counsel for the state:

6. Learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent- State of Jharkhand has not disputed the aforesaid fact and has fairly submitted that the matters may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2017. Analysis

7. After, going through the order dated 04.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2017 along with other analogous cases, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made in the present writ petitions.

8. We have also examined the aforesaid order of this Court dated 04.12.2023 and found that the issues involved in the present cases are identical to those in W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2017 and the other analogous cases, which were disposed of by remanding the matter to the District Mining Officer for passing a fresh order. This is evident from the relevant paragraph of the said order dated 04.12.2023 which is being quoted herein under :

22.This Court is now considering as to whether the demands issued against the writ petitioner can be said to be without following the principles of natural justice.

23.The law is well settled that any demand or any adverse decision is being taken by the competent authority, the same is only after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned reason being that the principle to provide opportunity of hearing is the cardinal principle of natural justice as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248. ---------

24.It has also been settled that show cause notice given or not is to be reflected from the impugned decision so that the order be said to be after observance of principles of natural justice.

25.We have considered the impugned order and found therefrom that there is no reference of show cause notice contained therein.

26.Learned AAG-IA has fairly submitted by accepting the order raising liability that no opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner. 27.The writ petitioner has also made statement that all of a sudden, demand notices have been issued. The aforesaid statement has not been refuted by the learned State counsel.

28.The issue since has been raised regarding applicability of Rule 64 (1) or Rule 64(B)(2) and further the demand has been raised under Rule 64(C) but there is no consideration as to whether Rule 64(B)(1) is applicable or Rule 64(1) is applicable. Further, there is no reason assigned therein that on what basis Rule 64(C) is applicable, as such, since the impugned orders, it is very much clear that the aforesaid orders has been passed raising the demands without any show cause that too there is no discussion of applicability of the specific provision either Rule 64(B)(1) or Rule 64(B)(2) and further why Rule 64(C) has been referred therein, there is no reference contained therein.

29.This Court, therefore, is of the view the said orders cannot be said to be reasoned and speaking.

33.Accordingly, impugned orders

25.10.2016,14.10.2009, 17.11.2009,24.11.2009, 12.12.2009,

26.02.2010 13.10.2009 are quashed and set aside.

34. Since this court has interfered with the impugned orders on the ground of violating of principles of natural justice, hence, the requirement of law will be that the matter needs to be referred before the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer to pass fresh orders by providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner so as to decide : (i) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(1) or; (ii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(2) or; (iii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(C).--- -------

9. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned orders since have been issued without providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petition and further without making discussion about the applicability of the provision of Rule 64(B)(1), Rule 64(B)(2) and Rule 64(C), hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders require interference.

10. Accordingly, impugned demand notice dated

14.09.2009 as contained in letter Nos. 2705 (W.P.(C) 1666 of 2011) and 2703 (W.P.(C) 1685 of 2011)are quashed and set aside.

11. Since this court has interfered with the impugned orders on the ground of violating of principles of natural justice, hence, the requirement of law will be that the matter referred before concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer to pass fresh orders by providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner so as to decide : (i) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(1) or; (ii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(B)(2) or; (iii) Whether it is a case of Rule 64(C)

12. Let the concerned competent authority take decision to that effect bypassing a speaking order in accordance with the law but prior to that it is incumbent upon the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer to issue show cause notice to the writ petitioner which shall be issued within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

13. The writ petitioner, on receipt of such show cause notice, will file response within a period of three weeks thereafter.

14. The concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer will take decision in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such response by passing a reasoned order.

15. Needless to say, that if there is none appearance on behalf of the concerned party even after receipt of the notice, the concerned authority will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

16. The demands which are subject matter of the instant writ petitions, will depend upon the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer.

17. Accordingly, both instant writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

18. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/Abhishek