The court ruled on the jurisdiction of certificate proceedings and the necessity for documentation to uphold public demands, embracing the doctrine of alternative remedies.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the entire certificate proceeding arising out of Certificate Case No.01/2005-06 has been challenged.

2. The extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to the Court under Article 226 has been invoked. The reason for invoking such jurisdiction, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, is that the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction. The issue of jurisdiction is based upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court rendered in the case of “Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation and etc. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in AIR 1984 Pat 280 .

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the law, since, has already been laid down that once the land is vested in the Central Government after the proceeding having been initiated and concluded under the Coal Baring Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957, the State is having no jurisdiction to treat the Central Government as a lessee resulting into recovery, either of dead rent or surface rent.

4. Hence the writ petition has been filed questioning the very jurisdiction in initiation of certificate proceeding based upon the judgment passed by the Patna High Court.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Rahul Saboo appearing for the State based upon the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that on the identical issue, a judgment has been passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as under Section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the matter has been relegated to the appellate authority to decide the issue on merit.

6. It has been contended that herein also the similar situation is, since, the writ petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of notice under Sections 6 & 7 and the objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has already been filed.

7. It has been contended that the filing of the objection under Section 9 , is being submitted on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, however, no document on objection said to be filed as required to be filed under Section 9 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears from record that the certificate proceeding is initiated based upon the decision which was taken by the authority concerned by coming out with the order of public demand as stipulated under Section 3 of the Act, 1914 as per the schedule – 1 as contained therein of the Act, 1914.

9. Further we have found a document appended as Annexure-4 to the petition, which has been issued in purported exercise of power under the Act, 1914 and in consequence thereof the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 had been issued, but we have not found from the counter affidavit, the very basis of the application made by the mining authority for the purpose of making requisition declaring a particular amount which is to be paid by the writ petitioner in favour of the State Government, while, Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, 1914 provides that a requisition is to be made by the authority concerned before the certificate officer and after receipt of the said certificate, the certificate officer will issue notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914.

10. It is evident from Section 6 that it is not that the certificate officer will mechanically issue notice under Section 7 , rather the requisition will be receiv