Issuance of distress warrant without resolving objections under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act is unlawful; however, certificate proceedings were justified due to pending revision without a stay.

Prayer :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,51,50,440/- including fine of Rs. 3,98,000/- and for quashing certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warrant dated 22.01.2020 issued by respondent no. 2.

Factual Aspect:

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the averments made in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was granted lease in mauza Fataipur for the area of 4 acre and the said lease was valid up-to 07.09.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned mine is a broken mine as prior to grant of lease in favour of the petitioner the lease was granted to one Sudhansu Kumar Singh in plot no. 253 and 256/P on 2.50 acre on 08.09.2001 for 10 years. Subsequently, lease was granted in favour of one M/s Ankur Stain Works in plot no. 254 and 241 in the total area of 4 acre on 06.07.2001 for 10 years.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that that by virtue of a deed of transfer the lease deed for the aforesaid area of 4 acre has been transferred in favour of the petitioner on 10.02.2010. Further case of the petitioner is that the lease of the petitioner is valid up-to 07.09.2021.

4. But, all of a sudden, the petitioner received a demand notice dated 26.05.18 issued by respondent no. 3-District Mining Officer, Pakur, by which for the first time petitioner came to know that a proceeding of demarcation of the lease area and measurement was done by the respondent no. 3- District Mining Officer, Pakur on 07.04.2018, 08.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 to 12.04.2018.

5. Against the impugned demand petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 31/08/18 on two grounds that the petitioner did not prefer the appeal within the limitation period, and further, the petitioner did not deposit 50% of the amount of demand as per Rule 65(3) of the Jharkhand minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 [in short ‘JMMC Rules, 2004’]

6. Being aggrieved the petitioner has moved this court in WPC no. 4986 of 2018 challenging the impugned demand, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2018 holding the writ application not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy to the revision application before the mines commissioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed revision case no.26/2019 and the same is still pending. But during pendency of the revision application, the respondent no.3 filed the certificate proceeding being certificate case no. 2/18-19 for realization of certificate amount of Rs. 1,51,50,440/-

8. The respondent No.3 issued notice under Section 7 of the PDR Act and asked the petitioner to file objection, either to deny or admit the liability. Accordingly, the petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of PDR Act on 5.10.2018 denying his liability and also for the reason of challenging the demand notice in Revision case no. 26/2019. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has issued distress warrant on 22.01.2020 without deciding the objection filed U/Sec. 9 of the PDR Act.

9. Being aggrieved with the demand notice dated 26.05.2018 and direction to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,51,50,440/- including fine of Rs. 3,98,000/- and for quashing certificate proceeding as well as order of issuance of distress warrant dated 22.01.2020 issued by respondent no. 2, petitioner approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Submission of the petitioner

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to make out a c