IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1442 of 2006 M/S Kalyanpur Cements Limited at and P.O. Banjari, District Rohas, through its Vice President (Finance) Shri P.K. Chaubey, son of Shri Y.N. Chaubey, resident of Shrikrishna Nagar, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna…………………………………………...Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram). 2. Certificate Officer-cum-Deputy Director, Mines Magadh Anchal, Patna. 3. District Mining Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 4. District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram…….Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Md. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. P. Sinha, Spl.P.P., Mines. ---------------------------------- 03/ 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 16.07.2005 by which District Magistrate, Rohtas dismissed Miscellaneous Case No.29 of 1993 and rejected the petitioner’s claim for refund of 40% amount i.e. Rs.7,12,073.00 deposited at the time of filing of Certificate Appeal No.03 of 1988. 3. Although no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents even after about more than five years of filing of this writ petition but learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of orders of the authority annexed to the writ petition. 4. From the facts and circumstances as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that - 2 - Certificate Appeal No.03 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner challenging order of the Certificate Officer for realization of dues of cess royalty amounting to Rs.17,64,829.59 from the petitioner. However, the said order of the Certificate Officer was set aside by the Collector vide order dated 28.04.1993 (Annexure-2) as the certificate proceeding was found to be vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory provision of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. It was further mentioned in the said order that it will be open to the authorities to file a fresh certificate case for realization of the actual dues from the appellant as per the provisions of law and in strict compliance of the relevant legal provisions referred therein. 5. It further transpires that Miscellaneous Case No.29 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Rohtas for recovery of 40% of Rs.7,12,073.00 as per the directions given by the Collector in abovementioned Appeal Case No.03 of 1988. It also transpires that the said miscellaneous case was rejected by the Collector by his impugned order dated 16.07.2005 (Annexure-1) not on the basis of any concrete facts and materials produced before him rather it was passed only on mere assumption that the amount might have been adjusted against some dues. This is not the manner in which a functionary like the Collector has to function or to decide the matter. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and - 3 - the impugned order dated 16.07.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by the Collector, Rohtas (respondent no.4) is hereby quashed and he is directed to decide the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case No.29 of 1993 afresh after giving opportunities to both the parties to raise all their pleadings and support them by concrete materials whatsoever. The Collector, Rohtas must dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties as the matter is already about two decades old. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)