IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 270 OF 2009 M/S. V. S. DEMPO AND CO. PVT LTD THROUGH SR MANAGER SUBHASH KARMALI AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY ... Respondent Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 8th June, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri S.S. Kantak, learned Advocate General for the Respondent. 2. By the above application, the applicants are seeking for an interim relief restraining the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Goa Rural, Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 and Rules thereunder levying cess upon the mineral ore from transportation of the mineral ore and also from initiating any prosecution or from levying any penalties on the petitioners in terms of Section 9 or any other provision of the said Act and further to stay the notice dated 27/07/2010 and 29/09/2010 issued by the respondent (Director of Transport) under the provisions of the said Act. 3. Rule is already issued in the above petition and the same is due to come for final hearing. There are similar writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Goa Rural, Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000, wherein similar applications were filed and this Court has by order dated 10/03/2011 passed in Civil Application No.22/2011 in Writ Petition No.753/2010 refused any interim relief. For the reasons stated by the Division Bench of this Court in the said order dated 10/03/2011, we are not inclined to grant any interim relief staying the demand notice issued to the applicant. Hence, the prayer for interim relief stands rejected. However, in so far as prosecution of the applicants under Section 9 of the Act is concerned, we accept the statement made by the learned Advocate General to the effect that the State Government would not initiate any proceedings in terms of Section 9 of the Act against the applicants for non-payment of the amount due in terms of the demand notice for the period up to 6/10/2010. 4. Needless to mention that the recovery of any cess shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition and if the Writ petition succeeds the applicants shall be entitled to recover all the amounts paid without being compelled to take recourse to any other proceedings. The issue of entitlement of interest on such amount is kept open. S.A. BOBDE, J. F. M. REIS, J. NH