Central Coalfields Limited, a Government company v. The State of Jharkhand

Prayer:

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the entire Certificate Case No. 01/2005-06 pending before the Certificate Officer (Mines) and the Notice contained in memo no. 282 dt. 07.02.2006 issued under the signature of the Certificate Officer (Mines) whereby a demand of Rs.52,38,78,085 has been raised towards surface rent for 1 the period 1973 to December 2005 out of which Rs.16,65,05,146 is towards interest. Factual Matrix The factual aspect involved in this case reads as

under:

For the purpose of mining activities of the petitioner the lands were acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 and the petitioner also acquired collieries on account of vesting of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973.

The State Government time and again direct the petitioner to pay the land rent/surface for the lands under their control and as such it was brought to the knowledge of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India.

The Government of India by letter dated 12.02.1999 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar has clarified that the land rent/surface rent is not payable by the coal companies owned by the Central Government. The Government of India again vide letter dated 03.04.2022 wrote the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that the State Government should not raise Surface rent on the land acquired under the different Acts from the Coal Companies owned by the Central Government. 2

In the meantime the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand issued a Resolution No. 1055/M dt. 17.06.2005 by which a demand of 5% of present land value was to be levied as surface rent per annum for mineral bearing land from the lease holders with immediate effect.

The District Mining Officer in the garb of the Resolution dt. 17.06.2005 made a demand of Rs.52,38,78,085.00 towards surface rent for the period 1973 to December 2005 out of which Rs.16,65,05,146.00 was made towards interest. In pursuance of the resolution made by the District Mining Officer a Certificate Case No. 01/2005-06 was initiated and a notice in Memo No. 282 dt. 07.02.2006 was issued to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-CCL has submitted that the lands since have been acquired under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1957) and, as such, the same has been vested upon the Central Government and once it has been 3 vested upon the Central Government then no subsisting right is available for the State Government to make any demand considering the Central Government or the Government Company like that of the writ petitioner to be the deemed lessee.

It has been contended that after the declaration of the acquisition and the gazette notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1957 in favour of the Central Government, the land has been vested free from any encumbrances and subsequent thereto, in view of the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1957, land has been vested upon the Government

Company, the writ petitioner herein.

The contention has been raised that at the time when the land was vested upon the Central Government/ Government Company, no subsisting right of lease was existing, as such, it is not a case where the Government Company will be said to be deemed lessee of the State Government in the light of the provision as provided under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1957.

It has been contended that from bare perusal of Section 18-A it would be evident that the Central Government or the Government Company "may pay" to the State Government such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by lessees had such lands or 4 rights been under mining lease granted to the State Government. The use of word "may" make it clear that amount which is paid under Section 18-A is firstly discretionary and, secondly, as will be apparent from bare perusal of the object of the Amending Act, is on ex- gratia basis. However, the State Government all of a sudden started insisting for payment of surface rent and dead-rent which has given rise to the instant litigation.

Learned counsel has submitted that the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. reported in (2023) 4 SCC 343, therefore, will not be applicable on the premise of the factual aspect involved in the present case, since, in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra), the factual aspect was with respect to the issue of premium and compensation and has been dealt with the implication in a case of subsisting right at the time of vesting of the land in favour of the Central Government or the Government Company, therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) will not be applicable herein.

It has been contended that the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4092, 5 rather will be applicable wherein the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has been distinguished on the facts of the case.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the demand so raised on behalf of the State, therefore, requires interference since it has been issued without any jurisdiction conferred upon the State after vesting of the land in the Government Company under Section 10(1) read with Section 11(1) of the Act, 1957. Submission made by respondent-State learned counsel for the

Per contra, learned G.P. II appearing for the State, has submitted by referring to the provision as contained under Section 10 of the Act, 1957 that the vesting as notified by virtue of the provision as contained under Section 10 of the Act, 1957 will be of the land or the rights in or over the land, meaning thereby, the land which has been acquired or the rights in or over the land, all will come under the fold of Section 10 of the Act,

The contention has been raised that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi 6 Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) wherein by taking aid of insertion of the provision by way of amendment of Section 18-A of the Act, 1957, which speaks with respect to payment to State Government in lieu of royalty and by taking into consideration the implication of Section 18-A of the Act, 1957, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the aforesaid provision in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra), has held the Government Company, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited in the said case, to be the deemed lessee and thereby upheld the demand raised by the State upholding the view taken by the High Court of Orissa.

Learned State Counsel in view of the aforesaid submission, has submitted that the demand, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit and the provision as contained under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) and State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra). 7

This Court, on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the parties, needs to consider following issues:- (i) Whether the State can be said to be empowered to issue demand if the land has been vested free from all incumbrances without any subsisting right of lease in favour of any party at the time of vesting under the notification of Section 9 of the Act, 1957? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) will be applicable or the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) will be applicable?

It needs to refer herein that this Court has come across the judgment passed on 16.09.2025 by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019 and analogous cases.

We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the judgment dated

16.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4478 of 2019 and analogous cases, have found that the issues, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid 8 judgment. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being referred as under:- “29. This Court, on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the parties, needs to consider following issues :- (i) Whether the State can be said to be empowered to issue demand if the land has been vested free from all incumbrances without any subsisting right of lease in favour of any party at the time of vesting under the notification of Section 9 of the Act, 1957? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) will be applicable or the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) will be applicable?

38. Section 10 thus, provides that what would be the situation of the land if the land has been vested upon the Central Government while Section 11 stipulates that if the Central Government is satisfied that the Government Company is willing to comply or has complied then the vesting will be in favour of the Government Company. The pari materia provision is there under Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 as that of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 thereof.

39. Section 18A has been inserted in the Act on the premise of the objective and dealing with representation of the State Government as per the object of the Act, 1957, for ready reference the same is being referred herein:- "Act 54 of 1971- The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) hereinafter referred to as the Coal Bearing Areas Act) provides inter alia for the acquisition by the Central Government of virgin lands, including underground minerals, or rights in or over such lands. Under the Explanation to clause (a) of sub-section (5) of section 13, which provides that the value of any minerals lying in the 9 land will not be taken into consideration in determining the market value of any land no compensation is payable to the State Governments in respect of the underground minerals which also vest in the Central Government when the land is acquired by the Central Government. The State Government have been representing from time to time that this results in their being deprived of large sums by way of revenue. The Central Government considered representations of the State Government and has decided that the State Governments should be paid purely on an ex gratia basis such sums as they would have been entitled to receive by way of royalty. had mining leases been granted in respect of the areas acquired. It is now proposed to amend the Coal Bearing Areas Act to make such payments obligatory.”

40. It is evident from the aforesaid object that the same has been considered by the legislature based upon the representation made by the State Government from time to time that this result in their being deprived of large sums by way of revenue. The Central Government has considered the representations of the State Government and has decided the State Governments should be paid purely on an ex gratia basis such sums as they would have been entitled to receive by way of royalty, had mining leases been granted in respect of the areas acquired.

41. The Central Government, in view of the aforesaid consideration, has inserted Section 18A which stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land or any rights in or over land belonging to a State Government (other than the rights under a mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by the State Government to any person) vest in the Central Government under section 10 or in a Government Company under section the Central Government or the Company, as the case may be, may pay to the State Government such sum of money as would have been payable as royalty by a lessee had 10 such land or rights been under a mining lease granted by the State Government.

42. The emphasis of argument advanced on behalf of the State is the provision as contained under Section 18A of the Act, 1957.

43. Learned Advocate General, in support of his argument, has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra).

44. We have gone through the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) along with the factual aspect narrated in para 2 to 5, for ready reference the factual aspect is being referred herein which is having bearing in the consideration of the issue pertaining to the applicability of the judgments as per the Issue No.(ii) framed hereinabove:- “2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under : That the lands in question owned by the State Government of Odisha came to be acquired by the Government of India under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1957 Act”). That thereafter, vide order dated 4-9-1981 and in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the 1957 Act with respect to some lands acquired, the Central Government directed that the rights in or over the lands vested absolutely in the Central Government, shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, under sub-section (1) of Section 10, vest in Western Coalfields Limited.

3. That vide order dated 15-12-1988, with respect to some other lands acquired by the Central Government and in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the 1957 Act, the Central Government directed that the said lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from 16-5-1987 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the government company, subject terms and 11 conditions mentioned in the said order. That is how, the appellant acquired the lands and rights over the lands in question. That the respondent issued the demand notice dated 15-3-1984 for a sum of Rs 70 lakhs towards premium for government land and Rs 40 lakhs towards compensation.

4. That various similar demand notices were issued for area of non-forest government land and revenue forest land. The demands were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition before the High Court.

5. Before the High Court, Section 18-A of the 1957 Act was pressed into service by the appellant herein and it was submitted that in view of the notification as the lands and rights on the lands absolutely vested in the Central Government thereafter, the State Government is not entitled to any compensation with respect to the lands so acquired/vested except the royalty leviable under Section 18 A of the 1957 Act. By the impugned judgment and order [Mahanadi Coalfields v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 512] the High Court has interpreted Section 2(d) of the 1957 Act and has observed that the State Government can be said to be person interested in land and therefore, entitled to the compensation over and above in lieu of losing the rights over the land. That thereafter, by the impugned judgment and order [Mahanadi Coalfields v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 512] the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has confirmed the demand(s).”

45. It is evident from the factual aspect of the said case in question owned by the State Government of Orissa had been acquired by the Government of India under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 and the Government thereafter vide order dated

04.09.1981 and in exercise of power conferred by Sub- section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, 1957 with respect to some land acquired, the Central Government directed that the rights in or over the lands vested absolutely in the Central Government, shall, instead of continuing to 12 vest in the Central Government, under Sub-section (1) of Section 10, vest in the Western Coalfields Limited. Vide order dated 15.12.1988, with respect to some other lands acquired by the Central Government and in exercise of powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, 1957, the Central Government directed that the said lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from 16.05.1987 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. The appellant thereby has acquired the lands and rights over the lands in question. The respondent issued the demand notice dated 15.03.1984 for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards premium for Government land and Rs. 40 lakhs towards compensation. Various similar demand notices were issued for area of Non-Forest Government land and Revenue Forest land. The said demands had been challenged before the High Court. The High Court has passed order upholding the said demands. The same has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the premise of applicability of the provision of Section 18A, for ready reference, the relevant part of the aforesaid judgment as referred in paragraph 16 and 18 is being referred herein :- “16. Now so far as the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the Government company in whose favour the order is passed under Section 11 after which is vested absolutely with the Central Government except the amount of royalty as per Section 18-A of the Act, the Government company is not liable to pay any amount is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. The compensation/rental payable with respect to the lands by the lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than the royalty. Royalty is for extraction of minerals in the lands in question.

18. In that view of the matter over and above the amount of royalty the coal company/Government company shall be liable to pay the compensation and 13 surface land rent, etc., Therefore, the High Court is absolutely justified in confirming respective demand(s). The amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation. If the submission made on behalf of the appellant is accepted in that case nothing would be paid towards the lands except the amount of royalty under Section 18(a) of the Act, which is for extraction of minerals.”

46. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in the light of the fact that the Central Government is liable to make payment of compensation and surface land rent, etc. has been pleased to uphold the view taken by the High Court.

50. We have also considered the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) and after going through the factual aspect, as would be evident from the reference made therein at paragraph 3, that on

23.12.1980, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 of its intention to acquire the lands admeasuring 1657.16 hectares (approximately) as specified in the Schedule, and consequently, issued a declaration on 17.11.1981 acquiring the said land under Section 9 of CBA, 1957. The said declaration was published in the Gazette of India, dated 05.12.1981, vesting the land and rights described the Schedule appended abovementioned notification absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Section 10(1) of the CBA, 1957. Further, in exercise of powers under Section 11(1) of CBA, 1957, the Union Government, by its order dated 02.11.1982, directed that the lands and rights so vested shall, w.e.f. from

05.12.1981, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company named Central Coalfields Ltd. (which was 14 later formed into Northern Coal Fields Ltd. w.e.f.

28.11.1985, i.e. the Respondent). Thereafter, the Respondent submitted a proposal for its „Krishnashila project‟ of 235.99 hectares of land for obtaining approval of the Central Government for use of the land for mining purpose under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Similarly, another proposal under the FCA, 1980 for usage of 258 hectares of forest land for mining purpose for „Bina Coal Project‟ was submitted to the Central Government for obtaining its approval. Accordingly, in pursuance of Section 2 of the FCA, 1980, the Central Government, vide its order dated

23.05.1996, granted approval for diversion of 258 hectares of forest land under „Bina Project‟, which was communicated by the State Government Respondent vide letter dated 28.06.1998. Similarly, the Central Government, with regard to the „Krishnashila Project‟, vide its letter dated 06.07.2006, granted approval for diversion of 235.99 hectares of forest land in accordance with Section 2 of FCA, 1980, which was communicated the Respondent by the State Government vide letter dated 27.07.2007. The Respondent, by virtue of Section 18A of the CBA, 1957, has been paying money equal to royalty as determined under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. However, the letter dated 23.03.2010 and subsequent letter dated

11.06.2010 were issued to the Respondent demanding the deposit of “lease rent” amounting to Rs. 1,24,23,015/- in accordance with Condition No. 7 of „Krishnashila Project‟ and Rs. 1,91,25,593/- accordance with Condition No. 12 of „Bina Project‟.

51. It is evident from the said judgment that the Hon‟ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the implication of Section 11(2) of the Act, 1957, has come to the conclusive finding that when the Central Government’s right was free from all encumbrances and completely absolute, the Government Company 15 also acquired an absolute right over the land. No question of a qualified right in the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government arises in such a situation. This is by virtue of the fact that when Central Government acquired such rights and also when it was further vested in the Government Company, there was no pre-existing mining lease in favour of any person and, therefore, Section 10(2) and Section 11(2) become inapplicable in the given case.

52. The said aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration at paragraph 14 which is being quoted hereunder as :- “14. Further, the Government Order dated

02.11.1982 published by the Government of India, which was produced as Annexure P-1 before us, clearly provided that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11(1) of the CBA, 1957, the Central Government had directed the vesting of such land and rights in the Government Company, with effect from 05.12.1981. It is to be noted that the rights in the Government Company were vested specifically by virtue of sub- section (1) of Section 11 and at that time, there did not exist any mining lease as provided under sub-section (2). As explained above, the rights under Section 11(1) are vested in the Government Company in the exact nature as they existed in the Central Government at the time. Therefore, when the Central Government’s right was free from all encumbrances and completely absolute, the Government Company also acquired an absolute right over the land. No question of a qualified right in the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government arises in such a situation. This is by virtue of the fact that when Central Government acquired such rights and also when it was further vested in the Government Company, there was no pre-existing mining lease in favour of any person and, therefore, Section 10(2) and Section 11(2) become inapplicable in the given case. Thus, land vested Government Company free from all encumbrances, 16 subject to the conditions imposed by the Central Government. Therefore, the State Government is not entitled to claim itself as a deemed lessor of the Government Company in the given situation and the demand “lease rent” becomes completely unwarranted.”

53. It is further evident that the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has also been taken into consideration and on fact, the said judgment has been distinguished on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) on the premise that the factual aspect leading to the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) was with respect to the payment of premium and compensation as opposed to the demand of “lease rent” in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra), for ready reference, paragraph-16 of the said judgment is being referred herein:- “16. There is another judgment of this Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha7 that was placed before us during the course of arguments. However, since in the said judgment, the dispute was with regards the payment of premium and compensation, as opposed to the demand for “lease rent” in our case, the judgment, being distinguishable on facts, is not applicable to the case at hand. Moreover, in the said case, the right of the State Government to claim compensation/premium under section 18A of the CBA, 1957, was recognized by virtue of State Government being a “person interested” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Herein, there arises no question of an “interested person”. The said judgment did not delve into the question at hand currently, that is the distinction between the nature of right acquired under Section 11(1) and (2), and there was no discussion whether there was a pre-existing mining lease at the 17 time of acquisition or vesting of rights or not. Hence, the said judgment, is clearly distinguishable on facts.”

59. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is admitted case of the State that the demand is not by way of premium and compensation, rather, it is on the basis of the lease rent which is also evident from the impugned order.

60. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the case of the writ petitioner is of acquisition of land having no subsisting lease right in favour of any party and, as such, the Government Company, the writ petitioner herein, will not be construed to be the deemed lessee of the State Government and in that view of the matter, the Government Company, due to vesting of the land, will not be liable to make payment of lease rent.

61. Again, adverting to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) and in absence of any subsisting lease, as referred in Sub-section (2) of Section 11, the State will have no jurisdiction to demand royalty once the land has been vested in view of the notification issued under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Act, 1957. The Central Government is having the propriety right over the land.

62. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, will not be applicable, since, the case of the State is not of demand of premium and compensation, rather, it is a case of lease rent. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra) will be applicable since the same is the case of lease rent wherein on fact the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Supra) has been distinguished. 18

63. It further needs to refer herein that in the case of State of U.P. and Another v. Northern Coal Fields (Supra), the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. and etc. v. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1984 Pat 280 has also been taken care of, as would be evident from paragraph-15 wherein, after giving consideration of the availability of the subsisting right in favour of the party and in such situation the land, if would have been vested upon the Central Government or the Government Company, as the case may be, then the question of lease rent would be there but it has been held by the Patna High Court that Section 10(2) of the Act, 1957 is not attracted because there existed no mining lease prior acquisition. The situation therein was also governed by Section 10(1) and hence, it was rightly held that the State Government is divested of all its rights and the relationship of lessor and lessee does not continue between the State and the Central Government, for ready reference, paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred herein :- “15. The findings of the Patna High Court in Paragraph 7 of the judgment in the case of Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation (supra) is in lines with our analysis as even in that case, it was held that Section 10(2) is not attracted because there existed no mining lease prior to acquisition. The situation therein was also governed by Section 10(1) and hence, it was rightly held the State Government is divested of all its rights and a relationship of lessor and lessee does not continue between the State and the Central Government (or for that matter the petitioner company).”

64. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reasons, is answering the aforesaid issues.

65. Accordingly, the issues are answered.

66. In the result, in consequence of the issues having been answered hereinabove and on the admitted facts 19 of the case that at the time of vesting of the land in favour of the Central Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 10(1) and subsequent thereto vesting to the Government companies in view of the provision of Section 11(1) and as stipulated in sub- section 2 of Section 11 there was no subsisting lease construing Government companies to be deemed sub- lessee of the State Government as such the State Government will have no right to demand by way of lease rent.

67. However, it needs to refer herein that if the subsisting lease would be there, then the judgment rendered in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors (supra) will be applicable.

68. Accordingly, the impugned orders need interference and, as such, the same are quashed and set aside.

This Court, therefore is of the view that since the factual aspect is identical and the issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019 and analogous cases on 16.09.2025, hence, there is no reason to take distinct view.

Since this Court has already adjudicated the issues involved herein in W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019 and analogous cases on 16.09.2025 by allowing the writ petitions in favour of the writ petitioners, hence, the instant writ petition also deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.

Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed, in terms of the judgment dated 16.09.2025 20 passed in W.P.(C) No.4478 of 2019 and analogous cases.

In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 13th October, 2025 Alankar/A.F.R. 21