VIRENDER SINGH,.J. - (1.) ALL these three petitions involving common questions of law are taken on board together for their consideration.
(2.) WE have already heard Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand on the last occasion at length on admission and in the interim relief matter, whereby stay of execution of the impugned demand notices is asked for.
(3.) THE petitioner, Tata Steel Ltd., has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 64B and 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as unconstitutional and ultra vires Section 9 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 64B and 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as ultra vires Section 13 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 64B and 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for creating artificial classification not based on any intelligible differentia by providing differential treatment in levy of royalty between coal put through a washing process within the leased area and coal put through a washing process outside the leased area; (iv) A further writ, order or direction declaring that charging of royalty on "processed mineral" as contemplated by Rule 64B of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is beyond the ambit and purview of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and ultra vires and unenforceable; (v) A further Writ, order or direction declaring that charging of royalty on "sale of processed mineral" as contemplated by Rule 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is beyond the ambit and purview of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and ultra vires and unenforceable; (vi) In the alternative to prayer (iv) and (v), an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that, in any event, Rules 64B and 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 inserted by the Central Government, Ministry of Mines have no applicability to hydrocarbons such as coal and lignite; Further prayer made herein is for quashing of the impugned demand contained in letter No.70 dated 22nd January, 2015 issued by respondent District Mining Officer, Ramgarh for an amount of Rs.121,29,59,749.85 and demand as contained in letter No.98 dated 30th January, 2015 for an amount of Rs.200,40,93,162.62 (relating to W.P.(C) No.2176 of 2015) in respect of dispatch of washed coal for the period 2009 -13 and 2013 -14 respectively from the West Bokaro Colliery and quashing of demand as contained in letter No.97 dated 30.01.2015 for an amount of Rs.25,71,24,320.08 in respect of dispatch of tailings for the period May 2013 to March 2014 from the West Bokaro Colliery.;