- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) IT will be appropriate to mention here that the appellant filed a Claim petition, being Claim Petition No. 9247 of 1972 before the Commissioner of Payments under Section 25 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, in which, the petitioner raised a claim of Rs. 2,86,282.22. The petitioner's claim was based on the audited statement of accounts and petitioner also submitted some supporting documents. The petitioner's contention is that in view of the decision the Government notified on 17.10.1971 the management of South Tisra Colliery Co.(P) Ltd vested in it from 17th October, 1971. This vesting of management was followed by nationalisation of the coal mines by notification dated 1st May, 1972. During this period i.e., 17th October, 1971 to 30th April, 1972, the Central Government had to put some money for the purpose of managing of the Coking Coal Mines and, therefore, a provision was made in the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, by inserting Section 25, providing that every amount advanced by the Central Government or by the custodians for the management of Coking Coal Mines shall be recovered from the income derived from such Coking Coal Mines or Coke Oven Plants in respect of the period during which the management of such mines or plants has been remained vested with the Central Government. This Section 25 was substituted by the Act of 1986 by virtue of Section 19 and it has been provided in substituted Section, which was made effective retrospectively from 1st May, 1973 that any amount in excess of the payment over receipts in the statement of accounts prepared under Section 22 shall be deemed to be an amount advanced by the Central Government or the custodian, for the management of the Coking Coal Mines or Coke Oven Plants during the period, in which, the management of such mines or plants remained vested in the Central Government and the Central Government may make a claim to the Commissioner for such excess payment and such claim shall have priority over the claims of all other unsecured creditors of the coking coal mines or coke oven plant. This claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents, the erstwhile coal company, on the basis of legal as well as on the question of fact and also by questioning the correctness of the audited account. The learned Commissioner of Payments vide order dated 28th September, 1979 rejected the claim of the petitioner on various grounds including on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the amount which petitioner claimed in its Claim Petition.
(3.) THE order passed by the Commissioner of Payments dated 29th September, 1979, under Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was challenged by preferring appeal before the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Dhanbad in Appeal No. 5 of 1979. The learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dhanbad, after enterpreting Section 25 of the Act of 1972 observed that the intention of the legislature was very clear as is apparent from Section 25 of the Act, that the amount to be claimed should be, for the purpose of management and should be advanced only during the management period and it does not stand to the test of reason and any common sense that an expenditure can be made for management purpose after the period of management had ended and thereafter, held that any payment made after the colliery was completely nationalized on 1.5.1972, the payment cannot be held to be the payment made for management purpose, obviously for the out going company. Therefore, such amount cannot be claimed under Section 25 of the Act. The learned Appellate Court also considered each and every entry of the audited account in detail and found several discrepancies in those entries and upon finding such discrepancies ventured to look into the supporting documents and found that the petitioner failed to produce relevant books of accounts and documents and some of the documents are illegible, therefore, account could not be verified. On this count also, the Appellate Court rejected the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.05.1989, the petitioner preferred writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 1694 of 1989. The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 9.1.1998 on the basis of statement given by both the parties that the controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by decision of this Court delivered in the case of Purushottampur Colliery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 816. The learned Single Judge, in view of the submission of the parties, dismissed the writ petition of the writ petitioner. The petitioner then submitted a review petition, being Civil Review No. 22 of 1998(R) before the learned Single Judge, which was also dismissed by order dated 30.04.2001. Not satisfied with above two orders, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 9.07.2001 merely by saying that Court does not find any merit in this appeal. The petitioner then approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring Special Leave to Appeal, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 359 of 2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the said Civil Appeal and set aside the order of the Division Bench as it was not a reasoned order. Hence, this matter has again come up before this Court.;