CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Central Coalfields Ltd. vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 22 December 2005 · Citation: AIR 2006 Jhar 61 : (2006) 1 JLJR 290 : (2006) 1 JCR 401 : (2006) 40 AllIndCaS 947 : (2006) 1 AIRJharR 732

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Merathia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 3459 of 1996 (R)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 353 words

R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Modi, learned Counsel appearing for the State.

2.

In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 29.7.1987, passed by the Certificate Officer (Mines), Hazaribagh in Certificate Case No. 4 of 1984-85, rejecting petitioner''s objection and also the order dated 15.9.1994, passed by the appellate authority in C.A.N. No. 15 of 1987, affirming the said order and also the order dated 22.4.1996, passed by the Revisional Authority, in Certificate Revision No. 120 of 1994, affirming the appellate order.

3.

Petitioner''s contention is that the Board of Directors of Coal India Limited had taken a decision for reducing the opening and closing balance of the stock of coal by five per cent, as while extracting/mining coal, shale/stones also comes out. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that royalty is payable on the dispatch of coal and not on the removal/extraction of coal from mine.

4.

Mr. Modi learned State counsel submitted that there is no such provision in the M.M.R.D. Act, 1949 (Sic--1957?); or Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, or under any other Law, under which the lessee-Coal Company can reduce the stock of coal unilaterally. He further submitted that the royalty is payable on the mineral removed/ extracted from the mines and not on dispatch of coal. He relied on the case reported in Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, .

5.

I find force in the submissions of the learned State counsel that the petitioner could not unilaterally reduce the opining and closing stock of coal on the, basis of some resolution of Coal India Ltd. and it is liable to pay royalty on the coal removed/extracted from mines and not only on dispatch, as held in the said judgment.

6.

The Certificate Officer is directed to conclude the Certificate Proceedings, expeditiously and if any further amount is found due and payable, the petitioner has to pay the same.

7.

With these observations and directions this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.