IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1891 of 2004 BAKSAUTI SCHEDULE CASTE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, Village- Kolaza, P.S.-Govindpur, District-Nawada, through its Secretary, Shri Ram Shwaroop Prasad, Son of Late Kanhai Ram, Village Kolaza, P.S.-Govindpur, District Nawada ..........Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Nawada, District Nawada 3. The State of Jharkhand, though the Deputy Director of Mines of Kodarma Region, P.S. Kodarma, District Kodarma, Jharkhand. 4. The Assistant Mines Officer, Nawada, P.S. and District Nawada 5. Assistant Director (Mines) Nawada, District Nawada. ................Respondents. ----------- 7 01.03.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Assistant Director (Mines) Nawada, as respondent no.5 during the course of the day. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition raising a grievance against the demand notice dated 3.11.2003 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of respondent Assistant Mining Officer, Nawada, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 58,124.55 towards the arrear of royalty and has further been directed to pay royalty for the period from January 2002 to March 2003, within 15 days otherwise consequential action would be taken. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being a Cooperative Society,was granted lease as far back as in 1988 for quarrying stones in the plot in question at Mauza Khakhanua Pahar in the district of Nawada. Through the payment of lease amount/royalty was being made by the petitioner, yet unnecessary dues of royalty were shown by the respondents resulting in to 2 initiation of certain certificate proceedings against the petitioner for the previous periods. It is also asserted that for the period in question, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount of royalty indicated in the demand notice (Annexure-6). If the proper calculation is made by the authority concerned, the amount of royalty will be much lesser then what has been shown in the demand notice. In the same vein, it is submitted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that some arrears amount has also been included in the demand notice, which was not permissible in the eye of law and further calculation of arrear was not correct. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 as also the supplementary counter affidavit and second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents. It is submitted that for the previous periods also the petitioner had not deposited the required amount of royalty and other dues, which resulted into initiation of two certificate proceedings. However, it is fairly conceded that so for the period in question is concerned, i.e. from January 2002 to March 2003 certificate proceedings has not been initiated against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, from the plain perusal of demand notice dated 03.11.2003 (Annexure 6), it is apparent that demand of Rs.58,124.55 is with respect to previous period and no amount has been disclosed towards arrears of royalty for the period from January 2002 to March 2003 and that is yet to be disclosed and calculated by the officer concerned. 3 6. After hearing the parties and on consideration of materials available on record, this Court finds that there is some confusion about payment of royalty made by the petitioner as also the arrear amount of royalty payable by the petitioner. The impugned demand notice dated 3.11.2003(Annexure-6) does not clearly show that the amount in question shown therein is actually for what period. Therefore, the entire matters require reconsideration by the competent officer. Calculation of royalty dues is required to be made on year to year basis and payments made by the petitioner is required to be adjusted towards the demand of royalty. 7. For the reasons recorded above, impugned demand notice dated 3.11.2003 (Annexure-6) is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Director (Mines), Nawada to examine the claim of the petitioner afresh. The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the Respondent Assistant Director (Mines), Nawada within a period of four weeks from today with a detailed representation along with a certified copy of the present order. If such a representation is filed within the time prescribed, then the respondents Assistant Director (Mines), Nawada shall be obliged to look into the relevant documents and record a finding as to whether any amount is due against the petitioner towards royalty for the previous period prior to January 2002. If any amount of royalty is found due against the petitioner, then he will prepare a chart to that effect and would hand over a copy of the same to the petitioner. He will also record a finding that how much amount is required to be paid by the petitioner towards royalty for the period from January 2002 to 4 March 2003. All the finding of facts shall be recorded by the Assistant Director (Mines), Nawada, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after examining all the relevant documents as also the documents produced by the petitioner. Entire exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. On fresh calculation having been made by the respondent Assistant Director (Mines) Nawada, the petitioner shall be obliged to make payment of the entire dues within a period of three months from the date of final order passed by respondent Assistant Director (Mines) Nawada, failing which respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take consequential legal action. 8. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the respondent Assistant Director (Mines), Nawada within the time prescribed by this Court with a detailed representation and a certified copy of the present order, then it will be construed that the present writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )