2005 Supreme(SC) 1125

2005(6) Supreme 108
Supreme Court of India
(From Jharkhand High Court)
C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Central Coalfields Ltd. —Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5451 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6374 of 2002)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5454 and 5452 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6422 and 6465 of 2002)
Decided on 1-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ajit Kumar Singh.
For the Respondents : Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Standing Counsel, D.N. Goburdhun and Ashok Mathur, Advocates.

Important point
Order dismissing writ on a finding that alternative remedy of appeal was available to petitioner would suffer no illegality.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 226 —Writ—Maintainability in light of availability of alternative remedy of appeals —Appellant, a Government Company, carrying on business in extracting, selling and distributing coal, acquired land through Central Government for mining purposes under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957—Initiation of proceedings by State Government Under Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 for recovery and realisation of surface rent for mining areas in possession of Company—Objections filed by appellant Company were rejected and interim order was passed by Certificate Officer directing appellant to deposit certain amount—Writ petition was dismissed holding that remedy of appeal was available—Appeal was also dismissed by Division Bench on a finding that right of appeal was “unfettered” and jurisdiction of appellate forum was plenary and unbound”—Appeal—High Court could not be said to have committed an error of law.

       Held : Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be disposed of by making certain observations. It is no doubt true that according to the appellant-Company the Certificate Proceedings could not have been initiated under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, in view of the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and also the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. But it also cannot be overlooked that the action has been taken under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and the appellant-Company was directed to make payment. The said order is subject to appeal under Section 60 of the said Act. A reading of the order dated November 17, 1999 passed by the Certificate Officer makes it clear that before taking the action, an opinion of the Advocate General of the State of Bihar was sought by the respondent. Referring to the provisions of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Advocate General opined that such amount could be claimed by the State Government from the appellant-Company. Reference was made to Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act and it was observed that the State Government had power to make demand of rent from the appellant-Company. In view of the above position, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had committed an error of law in dismissing the petitions and appeals by allowing the appellant to avail of an alternative remedy of filing appeals. Those orders, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity. As observed by the Division Bench, the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise all contentions including the contention as to the jurisdiction of the State Government and/or its officers in initiating Certificate Proceedings against the Company. Regarding the earlier decision in National Coal Development Corporation, the High Court was right in observing that the contention regarding alternative remedy was neither raised nor considered nor a finding had been recorded thereon. In view of the said fact also it would be appropriate if the appellant-Company is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. Since the appellant-Company had filed petitions, intra court appeals and the appeals in this Court, it would be in the interest of justice and we direct, that if appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are filed within a period of two months from today, the Appellate Authority will entertain them without raising any objection as to limitation. The Appellate Authority will hear the parties and decide the appeals in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from filing of the appeals without being influenced in any manner by the observations made by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench or by us in the present appeals. We may clarify that we are disposing of the appeals upholding the preliminary objection of the State Government regarding availability of alternative remedy of appeals and we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way or the other on merits and all contentions of all parties are kept open. (Paras 9 and 10)