- (1.) Prayer in this application has been made for review of the order dated-07.08.2008, passed in W.P. (C) No. 1514 of 2003.
(2.) Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that certain facts, which ought to have been placed at the time of arguments in the writ application, does not appear to have been placed at all or if placed, the same was not placed in proper perspective and, therefore, certain adverse observations appears to have been made in the final order, while disposing of the writ application. Learned counsel explains that against the demand of the Respondent-State Government for enhanced Royalty, the petitioner had filed a writ application initially before the Patna High Court, in which an interim order was passed restraining the Respondents-authorities from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner, therein, if the amount demanded is not paid. Subsequently, the writ application was disposed of on 16th October, 1996 by the Patna High Court and against the order of disposal, the petitioner had preferred Special Leave application before the Supreme Court. In the Special Leave application, by way of an interim order, the Supreme Court had directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 12 per cent per annum by way of penal interest instead of the demanded 24 per cent till final disposal of the Special Leave application. It was on account of such interim protection that the petitioner had paid interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The Special Leave application was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court, whereafter the liability of the petitioner was to pay the entire 24 per cent enhanced royalty, which amount, they had offered to pay to the Respondents. Learned counsel adds further that the payment by the petitioners of Royalty together with interest only @ 12 per cent per annum, was pursuant to the interim protection, granted by the order of the Supreme court and therefore, the delay in making the payments should have been considered by the concerned authorities of the Respondents as being not occasioned due to any fault on the part of the petitioner and the penal interest for the delayed payments should not have been raised against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that these aspects of the matter could not be placed before this Court at the time of final disposal and therefore, no specific order was passed on this issue relating to the petitioner's liability to pay penal interest for the period of about one and half years, during which the petitioner was not called upon to pay interest @ 24 per cent per annum on the basis of the interim order of the Patna High Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand would submit that the grounds as presently advanced by the petitioner, was in fact submitted at the time of the final hearing of the writ application and this Court after considering the entire submissions, had recorded its finding in the light of the final decision passed by the Supreme Court in the S.L.P. As regards the petitioner's contention that the petitioner should not be made liable to pay the penal interest for the period of almost one and half years purportedly covered by the interim protection granted to the petitioner by the order of the Patna High Court, is also misconceived in view of the fact that the Patna High Court had merely directed the Respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for realization of the demanded amount but it had nowhere given any exemption to the petitioner not to pay the amount demanded.;