Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.

1. In this batch of writ petitions the issues involved being identical, they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In all the write petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992, which replaced the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Ordinance, 1992, The Ordinance was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on February 15, 1992, whereas the Act was assented to by the president of India on 4th April, 1992, and published in the Gazette on the same day. The petitioners have also impugned the demands made for payment of cess under the said Ordinance and the Act. The impugned demands in C.W.J.C. No. 1280/92(R) are Annexures 7, 8, 13 and 14, in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1711/92(R) and 1702/92(R) are Annexures 4 and 5, in C.W.J.C. No. 1507/92/(R) are Annexure 8 series and in C.W.J.C. No. 1639/92(R)and Armexures 5 to 5/5. The impugned demands for payment of Cess under the Ordinance and the Act relate to the period till 4th April, 1991.

2. The contention of the petitioners is two fold. It is contended that the Ordinance as well as the Act, which later replaced the Ordinance, are unconstitutional and void for various reasons. Alternatively, even if the Act and the Ordinance are held to be valid, the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned demand notice under the Ordinance and the Act, since neither the Ordinance nor the Act permitted or permits any fresh recovery of cess under the provisions of the law declared invalid by the Supreme Court. The erstwhile Ordinance and now the impugned Act merely seek to validate the cess already collected or realised, which collection or realisation has been declared invalid by the Supreme Court. The sole objective of the Act is to validate the collections and realisation already made till April, 1991, and does not permit or authorise making of any fresh demand of any cess.

3. Though there is no serious controversy on facts, it is useful to refer to the salient facts stated in C.W.J.C. No. 1280/92(R), as that would also disclose the background in which the impugned Ordinance and the Act were passed, and the impugned demands made. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is an existing Public Limited Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of iron and steel and products thereof. For the purpose of its aforesaid business it requires coal, iron ore, chromite, dolamite, magnesite etc. In respect of such minerals petitioner No. 1 Company has several captive mines and quarries in the State of Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. In the State of Bihar petitioners No. 1 Company has captive coal mines in the district of Dhanbad and Hazaribagh, as also iron ore mine and mines of other minerals in the State of Bihar. The second petitioner is a share holder of petitioner No. 1 Company as also the Principal Officer and Senior Executive of the Company. The petitioner-Company always paid, and continues to pay, royalty to the Central Government on the minerals mined by it in accordance with and under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The State of Bihar also commenced charging cess on the royalty paid by the petitioner-Company to the Central Government in purported exercise of authority under the Bengal Cess Act, 1880, which was made applicable to the State of Bihar. Several Ordinances and notifications were issued from time to time, whereby the cess was sought to be enhanced from time to time by the State of Bihar. The rate of cess was progressively increased, and this is apparent from the fact that in the year 1975 the cess payable was equal to 30 percent of royalty in respect of mines and minerals, but under the Bihar Cess (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 it was enhanced to 500 percent of royalty on coal