SATYESHWAR ROY, J.

1. All these cases were heard together as common questions of law are involved and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The petitioners are lessees of different minerals. In C.W.J.C. No. 1210 of 1985(R) and C.W.J.C. No. 1871 of 1986(R) the lease is of Bauxite, in C.W.J.C. No. 734 of 1986(R), the lease is of Kyanite and in C.W.J.C. No. 877 of 1986(R), it is of Copper. The petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the State of Bhiar to impose and demand cess on Bauxite, Kyanite and Copper under the amended provisions of the Bengal Cess Act, 1880 (the Cess Act for short) and its jurisdiction to fix different rates at which cess is payable for different minerals. They have also challenged the certificate cases levied against them for recovery of cess at rates notified by the State Government.

3. There was some confusion at the Bar whether the amendment of Cess Act by the Bihar Cess (Amendment) Ordinance 1975 (Bihar Ordinance 209 of 1975) by which some of the provisions of the Cess Act were amended and which were kept in force by repeatedly promulgating it, were permanently incorporated in the Cess Act by an Act of the Legislature. Although Bihar O