ORDER :

This is an assigned matter by an order dated 04th April 2018 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.

2. This writ petition has been heard together with WP(C) No. 1085 of 2018 and WP(C) No. 816 of 2018.

3. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:

“For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing the demand notice no. 1441/M. Medini Nagar dated 29.11.2017 (Annexure-2) received on 22.12.2017 issued by the District Mining Officer, Palamu, Medini Nagar to the petitioner”

4. The State has filed counter-affidavit in this matter.

5. The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 29th November 2017 purportedly issued in the light of the judgment in “Common Cause v. Union of India” (2017) 9 SCC 499.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand notice dated 29th November 2017 was issued in complete violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as no notice or an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment in “State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapanai Dei” AIR 1967 SC 1269 to submit that it is mandated in law that even an administrative authority is required to afford an opportunity of hearing if the order proposed to be passed follows civil consequences.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment in “Common Cause” in no case would become a decree of the Court on the basis of which the petitioner can be saddled with a huge penalty of Rs.1,50,24,980.10 in the garb of sub-section 5 to section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, MMDR Act). Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all fairness the matter requires an order of remand with a direction to the competent authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the amendment made in MMDR Act to the extent that the expression “without lawful authority” has been explained by way of amendment of 2021.

9. Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 reads as under :

“21(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.”

10. The explanation incorporated in section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957 reads as under:

“On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression “raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority” occurring in this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence or in contravention of the rules made under Section 23-C.”

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would read out the statement of objects and reasons and the statement made by the Minister during the debate in the Parliament to submit that the Parliament when became aware of the difficulties faced by the mining industry proposed an amendment to obviate the difficulties faced by the industry due to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in “Common Cause”.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgments in “Zile Singh v. State of Haryana” (2004) 8 SCC 1 and “CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd.” (2008) 9 SCC 622 to submit that a clarificatory amendment would have a retrospective effect and while so in the light of the judgment in “Dayawati v. Inderjit” AIR 1966 SC 1423 the amendment made by the Parliament can b