IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.462 of 2007 Surendar Singh @ Surendra Singh s/o Late Gur Dayal Singh residing at Albert Road Jamalpur P.S. – East Colony Thana Jamlalpur District Munger ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Commissioner Department of Mines, Bihar, Patna 3. Collector, Munger 4. Assistant Mining Officer, Munger 5. Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Bihar, Patna …… Respondents ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1117 of 2007 Surendar Singh @ Surendra Singh s/o Late Gur Dayal Singh residing at Albert Road Jamalpur P.S. – East Colony Thana Jamlalpur District Munger ……. Petitioner Versus 6. The State Of Bihar 7. Commissioner Department of Mines, Bihar, Patna 8. Collector, Munger 9. Assistant Mining Officer, Munger 10. Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Bihar, Patna …… Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajni Kant Jha, Advocate (In both cases) For the State : Mr. M.D. Singh, AC to GP 3 (in CWJC No. 462/2007) Mrs. Jahan Ara, AC to AAG V (in CWJC No. 1117/2007) For the Mines : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, Spl. P.P. Mines (In both cases) ------------ 8 22.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Department of Mines. In C.W.J.C. No. 462 of 2007 a demand of 2 additional amount of Rs. 15,32,236/- raised vide letter no. 150/M dated 10.3.2006 (Annexure 3) as well as the revisional order dated 6.11.2006 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No. 25 of 2006 (Annexure 4) are sought to be quashed. It is submitted by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 462 of 2007 that the mining lease has been granted to the petitioner by open auction for the period of five years commencing from 11.2.2002 for the bid amount of Rs. 11,55,000/-. Therefore, the additional amount demanded in the name of additional royalty as per Annexure 3 amounting Rs. 15,32,236/- was wholly illegal. It is further submitted that it appears from Annexure 3 that the demand has been made in view of the decision of the Government as per the memo no. 2418/M dated 29.11.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this decision of the Government, which is contained in Annexure 5, cannot have a retrospective effect and additional amount cannot be charged in lieu thereof as the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner in the 3 year 2002 itself. It is further contended that the aforesaid decision of the Government has not been notified in the gazette. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the additional payment has been made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. So far C.W.J.C. No. 1117 of 2007 is concerned the issues involved therein are identical. However, there is difference in the area for which the lease has been granted as well as the quantum of the additional amount which has been demanded vide letter no. 164/M dated 13.3.2006, which amounts to Rs. 12,29,671/- in this case, and as also the date and number of the revisional order passed by the Mines Commissioner being 15.11.2006 and Revision Case No. 26 of 2006. At the time of hearing of this case a joint stand has been taken by the parties that the identical matter has been decided by a Divisional Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 948 of 2007 vide order dated 8.12.2011. A copy of the order has been 4 produced. The Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “ We find from the demand notices dated 06.07.2005 (Annexure – 2 series) issued by the Appellant no. 5 that no basis whatsoever for the amount of demands raised nor any opportunity had been granted before the demands were raised against the respondent. The issue relating to the respondent’s very denial of liability for additional royalty in view of the fact that the settlement of leases were for amounts in excess of the minimum reserve, has also not been considered by the learned Single Judge. In the above view of the matter, therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter require to be remanded to the appellant no. 5 for issuance of notices to the respondent to answer against levy of the additional royalty. The matter shall be decided afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. " The parties agree that the issues involved in the present cases being identical, these could also be disposed of in similar terms. As a result, these writ applications are also 5 disposed of in terms of the order dated 8th December, 2011 passed in L.P.A. No. 948 of 2007. The impugned notices as contained in Annexure 3 and the revisional orders as contained in Annexure 4, in both the cases, are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 4 for issuance of notice to the petitioner to answer against levy of the additional royalty. Thereafter, upon consideration of same and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, let a fresh decision be taken by the authority concerned in accordance with law by recording a reasoned order. Accordingly, both writ applications are allowed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)