Madhya Pradesh High Court
Century Textiles And Industries Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 29 August, 2013
1
W.P.No.4182/2013, W.P.No.7860/2009,
W.P.No. 14378/2009, W.P.No. 3616/2010,
W.P.No.6439/2010,W.P.No.1886/2012, W.P.No.15740/2012,
W.P.No.15840/2012 and W.P.No.1913/2013.
29/08/2013
Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocates with Shri Aditya
Adhikari, Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocates for petitioners in
W.P.Nos.4182/2013, 14378/2009 & 6439/2010.
Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Prem
Francis, Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocates for petitioners in
W.P.Nos. 7860/2009, 1886/2012 & 1913/2013.
Shri M.S. Jaiswal, Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocates with
Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate for petitioners in W.P.Nos.3616/2010,
15740/2012 & 15840/2012.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
The controversy involved in all these cases are identical. In all cases there are ad-interim writs in operation and the State has filed applications seeking vacation of ad-interim writs in operation on the ground that the order passed by this Court dated 02/11/2004 has not been complied with by the petitioners, so ad- interim writs issued earlier in the matters may be vacated.
By order dated 02/11/2004 (in some of the cases the dates of the ad-interim orders may be different, but the ad-interim directions are the same in all the cases and in the cases of ACC Cement the date of interim order is 28/06/2002), the Division Bench of this Court considering the controversy involved in the matter issued directions thus:-
"4. We have referred the rival contentions only to show that the matter is of a technical nature, if the appellants establish that the method applied and adopted 2 is erroneous, the State may have refix the conversion factor or go by actuals. Having regard to the fact that the claims relate to a period which is for more than 15 years, that is from 1986-87, and having regard to the fact that the conversion factor may have to be worked out separately in regard to each factory (keeping in view the quality of limestone used, manufacturing technology adopted and the variety of cement produced), it would be advisable if the State constitutes a Technical Committee to assess periodically the conversion factor in regard to each plant separately. Of course, if the belto-meter or other acceptable weighing machine is installed at a place acceptable to the State Government, then Royalty can be calculated on the actual weighment also. However, until that is done, the Government may have to continue to assess the royalty on the basis of some acceptable and valid conversion factor.
5. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State may therefore ascertain and inform us as to whether it will be possible for the State to appoint such a Technical Committee at this stage so that once for all, the disputes can be finally sorted out without further rounds of litigation.
6. The learned Deputy Advocate General states that the interim order of stay in operation is subject to payment of 40% of the dues claimed by the Government (on the difference between the quantity which is determined by the Government by applying the conversion formula of 1.6., and the quantity admitted by the appellants). He states that the said amount of (40% of difference) is not being paid even though the orders were made long back. It is needless to say that if 40% of 3 the dues is not paid as per the orders within the time stipulated, the stay will stand vacated and it will be open to the Government to recover the entire amount without further order."
The Division Bench had directed the petitioners to make payment of 40% of the dues claimed by the State on the difference between quantity which is determined by the Government by applying conversion farmula of 1.6 and quantity admitted by the appellants.
The sole contention of the State is that in spite of specific direction issued by this Court (supra), the amount has not been deposited by the petitioners.
The aforesaid position is seriously disputed by the petitioners. It was submitted by them that they have complied with the aforesaid order and have deposited the amount to the concerned authority in time. So far as the interest part is concerned, it is not disputed that the same has not been deposited by the petitioners before the authority.
Before passing any order in respect of vacation of ad-interim writ issued earlier, it would be appropriate to ascertain the factual position whether the petitioners have deposited the amount as has been directed by this Court on 02/11/2004 (supra). In view of the aforesaid, we direct thus:-
(i) All the parties present herein are directed to remain present before the Collector concerned on 11th of September, 2013. On that date, the parties shall submit their statements on affidavits to the Collector concerned that they have deposited the amount as has been directed by this Court vide order dated 02/11/2004 (supra).4
(ii) The Collector concern on receipt of the aforesaid statements, shall verify the factual position and after hearing the concerned officer and to the petitioners, shall decide the matter in following manners:-
'(a) What was the amount due against
the petitioners;
(b) What amount has been deposited by
the petitioners as has been directed by this Court vide order dated 02/11/2004 (supra);
(c) What amount is still due against the
petitioners; and
(d) What amount of interest is still due
against the petitioners.'
(iii) The Collector concern shall decide the
aforesaid, within a period of three weeks from the aforesaid date and submit a detail report to this Court within the aforesaid period, but not later than the next date of hearing fixed by this Court in the matter.
(iv) After ascertaining the aforesaid factual position by the Collector, if any amount is found due against any of the petitioners as per order of this Court dated 02/11/2004 (supra), that petitioner is allowed an opportunity to deposit the same with the authority within a period of one week from the date of order passed by the Collector.
Be listed for consideration on the application for vacating stay on 09th of October, 2013. On which date, the prayer of the State for vacation of ad-interim writ will be considered. Parties are 5 directed to communicate this order to the Collector concern on the aforesaid date i.e. 11-09-2013.
If the State is required to file reply, the State may do so before 09th of October, 2013.
Ad-interim writ issued earlier shall continue till 09th of October, 2013.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
SJ/-