JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, the learned A.C. to the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This writ petition was heard on different dates.

4. On 12.03.2021 Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had concluded his argument on behalf of the petitioner. On 09.07.2021, the matter was adjourned and was directed to be posted for argument of the learned Advocate General on 23.07.2021. The learned Advocate General had resumed his argument and for further argument it was adjourned for 30.07.2021. The argument of learned Advocate General was concluded on 27.08.2021 and it was fixed for today for reply on behalf of the petitioner.

5. I.A. No.3358/2020 was filed for stay and I.A. No.4154/2020 was filed for urgent interim relief which was decided by this Court on 17.12.2020.

6. The Court was not inclined to decide that I.A, however, on the insistence of the learned counsel Mr. Devesh Panda, who has also at that time appeared on behalf of the petitioner submitting that identical matters have been considered by this Court and interim relief has been provided, the Court decided that I.A by order dated 17.12.2020. The point of alternative remedy was raised by the respondent State and the Court has also opined that prima facie the jurisdiction is there with the Central Government and the Court has not given any final verdict on the point of maintainability, however, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter was directed to be listed for hearing on merits as it was argued that on the point of alternative remedy this writ petition cannot be dismissed. The petitioner was not heard before raising of demand and the prayer made in the writ petition is required to be decided by this Court. Thus, the matter was heard on merits.

7. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the entire proceeding against the petitioner. The cognizance of demand notice dated 29.11.2017 culminated in the order dated 26.02.2017 confirming the demand which has been passed in view of the decision taken at the meeting held on 28.01.2020.

8. The petitioner received a notice dated 29.11.2017 from the District Mining Officer, Palamau respondent no.3. The said notice was issued in terms of letter dated 23.10.2017 and on the basis of letter dated 16.08.2017. In the notice of demand it was alleged that in those was where production of mining exceeds the maximum limit of production will be in the Consent to Operate (CTO) and Environmental Clearance (EC) it was necessary to recover compensation from the erring party in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Common Cause v. Union of India and Others” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 499, on the basis of that account, that the amount of compensation was determined against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.7,04,94,059.25. In the said notice, 24% was also imposed as additional interest.

9. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice of demand was unfounded on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Common Cause”. He further submits that the demand was issued without considering the relevant provisions as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was repeatedly observed that holder of a mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as well as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and also by necessary implication, the provisions of the Forest (