Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Steel Authority Of India Limited ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2023
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 244 of 2002
With
I.A. No. 2331 of 2023
M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited through the General Manager,
Meghatuburu Iron Ore Mines, Raw Material Division, P.O. and P.S.
Meghatuburu, District Singhbhum West.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa
3. The Certificate Officer, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. The Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
19/20.03.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"for quashing the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder he has confirmed the certificate and directed that the petitioner is liable to pay the cess on surface rent for the period 29.3.1993 to March, 2000 along with the interest amounting to Rs. 5,96,386.80 Paise AND a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to forbear from giving effect to or acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said impugned order dated 19.10.2001."
3. I.A. No. 2331 of 2023 has been filed seeking amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was earlier taken up by this Court on 30.01.2023 wherein a submission was made that the matter related to 'cess on surface rent' and not 'cess on royalty'. It was also submitted that the impugned levy of 'cess on surface rent' is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the respondents have not mentioned about any provision of law upon which such levy could be imposed. It was submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file petition for amendment in the present writ petition as the very source of power to levy 'cess on surface rent' is required to be considered in the present case. The learned counsel 2 submits that accordingly the petition seeking amendment of the writ petition has been filed.
4. From perusal of the writ petition, this court finds that the writ petition as filed was primarily based on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4803-4808 (District Mining officer and others versus Tata Iron and Steel company Limited). When this case was taken up on 12.11.2009, a submission was made that the said case has been referred to a larger bench on the point as to whether any amount already realized is liable to be refunded by the state and consequently the matter was adjourned. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 08.02.2017 and ultimately on 19.11.2018 a plea of availability of efficacious alternative remedy was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and it was also submitted that the matter relates to cess on surface rent and not cess on royalty and therefore the stand of the petitioner that the case is covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not correct. The matter was adjourned at the prayer of the petitioner. On 09.01.2023 following order was passed: -
1. Nobody appears on behalf of the parties.
2. The case arises out of certificate proceedings and apparently, the matter relates to demand of cess on surface rent and as per the counter-affidavit, the same is payable in terms of Rule 27(1)(d) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
3. On 19.11.2018, specific argument was made by the respondents that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of appeal and the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to satisfy this Court on the point of alternative remedy.
4. Since the counsel for the parties are not appearing, in order to give one more chance by way of last indulgence, the matter is adjourned and is directed to be listed under the heading "For Final Disposal" on 16.01.2023"
5. Thereafter on 30.01.2023, the following order was passed: -
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter relates to 'cess on surface rent' and not 'cess on royalty.' Therefore, the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Mining Officer and Others versus Tata Iron and Steel Company & Another reported in (2001) 7 SCC 358 does not have a bearing in the present case, although the same was relied upon on 12.11.2009 and also in the writ petition. The 3 learned counsel submits that however, the impugned levy of 'cess on surface rent' is wholly without jurisdiction in as much as the respondents have not mentioned about any provision of law upon which such levy could be imposed. He has referred to the order contained in Annexure-4 to submit that as per Annexure-4 such levy has been made by referring to Rule 27(1) (d) of Mineral Concession Rules and upon perusal of said rule it does not provide for levy of any 'cess on surface rent'.
4. The learned counsel submits that he may be permitted to file a petition for amendment in the present writ petition as the very source of power to levy 'cess on surface rent' is required to be considered in the present case and the State is required to be given an opportunity to refer to the law under which 'cess on surface rent' has been levied through the impugned action. With the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment.
5. Post this case on 27.02.2023 under the same heading."
6. From the perusal of the writ petition, this Court find that the petitioner had challenged the certificate proceedings on the ground that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court vide judgement passed in civil appeal no. 4803-4808 (District Mining officer and others versus Tata Iron and Steel company limited) and ultimately on 30.01.2023 it was submitted that the aforesaid judgement has no bearing in the present case and now a petition seeking amendment of the writ petition has been filed challenging the very levy of 'cess on surface rent' stating it to be without jurisdiction.
7. This Court finds that the nature of relief and other pleadings which is sought to be inserted through this interlocutory application seeking amendment, is not based on any subsequent development and if the petition for amendment is allowed, the same will substantially change the nature of the writ petition as filed by the petitioner.
8. In such circumstances, the petition seeking amendment of the writ petition being I.A. No. 2331 of 2023 is rejected.
9. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the main relief in the present writ petition is concerned, the same is essentially dependent on the petition seeking amendment and therefore, the right may be reserved with the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition incorporating all the legal issues in connection with the 4 certificate proceedings and with this liberty, he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition.
10. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the main writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn and liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. It is observed that the withdrawal of the writ petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner and liberty is reserved to file a fresh writ petition or any other remedy which may be available under law.
11. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
12. Any other pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj