Disputed claims for refund of cess on royalty must be resolved in civil courts, not through writ petitions, as they involve complex factual determinations.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the Impugned order dated 20-02-2008 passed by the Dy. Director Mines-cum-Certificate Officer passed in Review Application in Case No. 16/88-89, 17/88-89, 25 (MP)/88-89 whereby and whereunder the refund of the 40% of the Certificate amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards the Certificate amount of Cess pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 1914) to pursue its Appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa Dy. Director Mines-cum- Certificate Officer has been refused to be refunded.

2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 20-02-2008 passed by the Dy. Director Mines-cum-Certificate Officer passed in Review Application in Case No. 61/ (90-91), 09/(91-92), 10/(91-92), whereby and whereunder the refund of the 40% of the Certificate amounts deposited by the Petitioner towards the Certificate amount of Cess pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 1914) to pursue its Appeal before the Additional Collector, Garhwa Dy. Director Mines-cum- Certificate Officer has been refused to be refunded.

Factual Matrix

3. Since, it appears that the issues involved in the both of these of writ petitions are identical, as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. From perusal of the prayers of these writ petitions it is evident that in both these petitions the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the certificate officer refusing to refund the amount deposited in terms of Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 ("PDR Act) for preferring an appeal.

5. Certificate cases were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of cess on royalty. The certificates case no. 61 of 1990-91 and certificate case no 10 of 1991-92 were instituted for demand of royalty and cess over the stock differences of Lime stone and Dolomite, whereas certificate case no. 09 of 1991-92 was filed for recovery of interest against certificate case no. 61 of 1990-91 which form the subject matter of WPC No. 1834 of 2008 and certificate proceeding in respect of payment of royalty and cess and case was registered and marked as Misc. Case No. 16/88-89, Misc. Case No. 17/88-89 and Misc. Case No. 25(MP)/88-89 which are subject matter of WPC No. 1870 of 2008 respectively.

6. In the aforesaid certificate cases the certificate officer while observing that the petitioner is liable to pay cess on royalty has rejected the objection petitions filed by the petitioner.

7. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal against the orders passed by the certificate officer before the appellate authority in terms of section 60 of the PDR Act 1914 and the petitioner has deposited the statutory amount in terms of second proviso to section 60(1) off the PDR Act wherein it is stipulated that an appeal would not be entertained unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has paid 40% of the amount determined under section 10 or such amount as the appellant admits to be due from him, whichever is greater.

8. In view of the above statutory provision the writ petitioner/appellant deposited the following amount and has preferred an appeal against the order of respondent no.2.

9. The appeals filed by the writ petitioner were registered as Certificate Appe