O.P.Jain, J. - (1.) The petitioner Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Tehrl, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter called the Corporation) has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the recovery certificates for the sum of Rs. 22,61,662 may be quashed. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner Corporation is a joint venture of the Union of India and the State of U. P. and it is engaged in the implementation of building a gigantic Power Complex. The entire assets and land belonging to Tehri Dam Project were transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1st of June. 1989 and the name of the Corporation has been mutated in the Revenue Records. For the construction of the Dam, the Corporation shifts ordinary earth in its natural form. Respondent No. 2 (Ziladhikari, Tehri Garhwal) demanded royalty on the earth shifted by the Corporation on the Dam site. According to the Corporation, no royalty was payable for this shifting of the earth and the Corporation is not liable to pay any royalty. The Ziladhikari has issued a recovery certificate to the Tehsildar for the recovery of Rs. 22,61,662. A copy of the citation is Annexure-6 to the affidavit. When the dispute was not resolved by correspondence with the higher authorities, the Corporation has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the recovery certificate may be quashed. It is also mentioned by the Corporation that on 10th of June, 1998, on the orders of Ziladhikarl, the Assistant Collector/S.D.M., Tehri Garhwal has issued order (Annexure-13) to the Managers of State Bank of India. Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India informing them that the account of the Corporation has been attached/seized and that no payment should be made to the Corporation from the said account till the Corporation deposits the arrears of Rs. 22,61,662. The order further says that the account will be released from attachment only after the deposit is made by the Corporation.
(2.) We have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. S. Maurya Advocate and learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has argued that the recovery certificate is illegal because the Corporation is the owner of the land from which earth is being excavated by it. It is also argued that ordinary earth is not included in the expression "minor minerals". The expression includes building stones, gravel, ordinary clay and ordinary sand. It also includes other minerals which the Central Government may declare by Notification as "minor minerals". It is argued that no Notification has been issued by the Central Government to include "ordinary earth" in the definition of "minor minerals" and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a minor mineral and no royalty can be demanded for the excavation of ordinary earth.
(3.) It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the above submission because the learned standing counsel has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. In support of the preliminary objection, the learned standing counsel has cited M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and another v. Collector of Central Excise, JT 1991 (4) SC 158, in which the following observations have been made by the Apex Court : "We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior Officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline. It shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. The Committee shall function under the ultimate control of the Cabinet Secretary but his delegate may look after the matters. This Court would expect a quarterly report about the functioning of this system to be furnished to the Registry beginning from 1st January, 1992. Our direction may be communicated to every High Court for information of all the Courts subordinate to them.";