The scheme sanctioned by the State Government under the SICA has over-riding effect, and a court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the memo dated 6-8-2007 (Annexure P/13) and the notice dated 31-8-2008 (Annexure P/15) respectively passed by the Collector, Raipur by which the Collector Raipur has demanded payment of penal interest for alleged delay in payment of the outstanding amount of royalty on limestone to the tune of Rs.1,13,15,527/-.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner/Ambuja Cements Limited is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its unit at Bhatapara now District Baloda Bazar. Petitioner/company is involved in manufacturing of cement and for manufacturing cement limestone is required as raw material which is extracted from the mine leased to the company under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concessions Rules 1956. The petitioner company has commenced its production in the year 1987 and due to certain financial constrains, the company has suffered loss, therefore, the company has been registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, “BIFR”) in June 1994 and thereafter BIFR vide its order dated 7-10-1997 sanctioned rehabilitation scheme of the company. The relevant clause of the sanctioned scheme which is required for adjudication of the present case is as under :

(f) To consider waiver of additional charges, penal interest and liquidated damages on arrears of sales tax, royalty and electricity bills till the date of sanction of the scheme by the BIFR.

(g) To consider rescheduling the arrears in respect of royalty, Mineral Rights Tax, and power bill or any other charges payable to the Government of Madhya Pradesh (GOMP),

(h) To consider renewal of the mining lease for another 20 years for limestone under the provisions of the Mines and Miners (R&D) Act, 1957 and the Minerals Concession Rules.

(i) To consider freezing the cost of power to be supplied by MPEB for a period of five years from the date of the scheme being sanctioned by the BIFR.

3. In pursuance of the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, the State Government has sanctioned rehabilitation scheme towards waiver of additional charges, penal interest and liquidated damages on arrears of sales tax, royalty and electricity bills and has issued scheme on 25-10-1999 providing relief to implement the order passed by the BIFR. The relevant clauses of the Scheme 25-10-1999 read as under :

^^jkT; 'kklu }kjk lanfHkZr vkns'k fnukad 18 ekpZ] 1999 dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq;s fuEuuqlkj lalksf/kr Lohd`r dh tkrh gS%&

1- [kfut {ks= fodkl midj dh jkf'k 01 tqykbZ] 86 ls fnukad 04-04-91 rd :i;s 3]71]04]296-58 iSls ¼rhu djksM+ bdgRrj yk[k pkj gtkj nks lkS fN;kuos :i;s ,oa vB~Bkou iSls½ ,oa ml ij C;kt :i;s 1]70]00]000-00 ¼,d djksM+ lRrj yk[k :i;s½ bl izdkj dqy :i;s 5]41]04]296-58 iSls ¼ikap djksM+ bdrkyhl yk[k pkj gtkj nks lkS fN;kuos :i;s ,oa vB~Bkou iSls½ ek= dh cdk;k jkf'k ds laca/k esa ch-vkbZ-,Q-vkj- ;kstuk dh Lohd`fr dh fnukad ls 2 o"kZ ¼nks o"kZ½ ds foyafcr Hkqxrku dh lqfo/kk nsrs gq;s jkf'k 10 ¼nl½ leku okf"kZd fdLrksa esa C;kt jfgr Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dh Lohd`fr iznRr dh tkrh gSA**

4. Thereafter, the Collector, Raipur had issued memo dated 6-9-2004 directing the petitioner to deposit the royalty for the period from April 1995, March 1997 to September, 1997 to the tune of Rs.1,20,05,000/-. The petitioner has submitted reply to the memo dated 6-9-2004 issued by the Collector mainly contending that the State of Madhya Pradesh has framed rehabilitation scheme as per the direction of the BIFR dated 7-10-1997 and since the company was declared sick under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, SICA), therefore, interest on installment is against the scheme framed by the Government and would pray for withdrawal of the