The main legal point established is that demands made without providing an opportunity of hearing and without considering the applicability of specific provisions are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

1. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the demand letters passed by the District/Assistant Mining Officer, whereby and whereunder, the demand has been raised on account of additional royalty along with the interest.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions which are common in nature and requires to be enumerated, read as under:

The writ petitioner-company is engaged in the mining and sale of coal for which the writ petitioner company has acquired several mines. Consequently, the writ petitioner company has acquired lands through Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for the purpose of developing Mines and other establishments connected with the Mines.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the coal which is being mined by the writ petitioner-company in the said mines is a specified mineral and therefore, the rate of royalty is being determined and revised by the Central Government from time to time and in absence of any special rate for washed coal notified by the Central Government in exercise of their powers under Section 9(3) of the MMDR Act, the coal company or any other mining lease for mineral coal are liable to make payment of royalty only at the rate specified for each grade of coal and the washery grade of coal is a separate grade of coal for which royalty is being paid by the writ petitioner-company at the rate specified.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that under Rule 64(B) and 64(C) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in case processing of mine is carried out within the lease area then royalty shall be chargeable on the processed mineral removed from the lease area and the writ petitioner-company has not been granted any lease by the State Government or the Central Government for mining coal as the land where the mining operations are being done has been acquired by the writ petitioner-company under the Coal Bearing Act (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.

It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that where the mineral is processed within a lease hold areas, the lessee is liable to pay royalty on the processed mineral, however, if the minerals are not processed within the lease hold areas, no royalty on the processed mineral is required to be paid rather royalty is required to be paid on the minerals removed from the mining lease areas and the writ petitioner-company is regularly making payment of sum equivalent to royalty to the State Government under the coal which is mined in different mines of the writ petitioner-company in terms of Section 9(3) of the MMDR Act.

3. However, while ignoring the settled proposition the concerned District/Assistant Mining Officer of the concerned districts demanded additional royalty as follows:

(i) In W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2017 vide letter dated 25.10.2016 contained in Memo No.4441/M had directed the Kargali Colliery to pay an additional royalty of Rs.8,76,39,205/- along with interest of Rs.3,88,58,658/-;

(ii) In W.P.(C) No. 1258 of 2011 vide letter No.654 dated 14.10.2009 had directed the Piparwar Washery to pay an additional royalty of Rs.8,50,71,806/-;

(iii) In W.P.(C) No. 1266 of 2011 vide letter no.3865 dated 17.11.2009; letter no.3963 dated 24.11.2009; letter no.5073 dated 12.12.2009 had directed the Sawang Washery to pay an additional royalty of Rs.21,66,34,052/-;

(iv) In W.P.(C) No. 1300 of 2011 vide letter No.893 dated 26.02.2010 had directed the Kathara Washery to pay an additional royalty of Rs.62,26,66,130/-;

(v) In W.P.(C) No. 1469 of 2011 vide letter No.1228 dated 13.10.2009 had directed the Rajrappa Washery to pay an additional royalty along with interest of Rs.14,65,99,464/-.

Being aggrieved with the demand of such additional royalty amount, the writ petitioner-company approached the respondent-authority by filing representation stating therein that no additional royalty is required to be paid