D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Prayer in this writ application is made for the following relief (s). 1. For quashing the order dated 26.10.2002 vide letter No. 2032/M (Annexure -11) issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology (Respondent No. 3) whereby the respondents have intimated the petitioner Association that the arrears of royalty shall be realized from the members of the Association with interest @24% in pursuance of the notification dated 21.9.1994 and in the light of the final order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5089 of 1997.
(2.) FOR quashing the letter No. 2206/M dated 28.10.2002 (Annexure -12) issued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur (Respondent No. 4) by which members of the petitioner Association have been directed to submit the relevant papers in order to assess the quantum of enhancement of royalty since 28.9.1994 @24% on account of default in payment of royalty and the enhanced royalty which the petitioner has already paid with interest @ 12% per annum in the light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 23.8.1997 shall be adjusted alternatively, the respondents shall fix the royalty amount on their own with the interest @24% which shall be payable by the petitioner Association. For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents and restraining them from realizing interest @ 24% over the enhanced royalty for the period in between 1994 -97. 2. The question raised in this writ application is, whether in the order dated 23.8.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6089 of 1997 the Supreme Court while laying down the manner in which the payment of arrears of royalty would be made has decided the issue relating to rate of interest payable to the petitioner and whether payment already made by the members of the petitioner Association was in accordance with the direction, and whether in absence of any order vacating the order dated 23.8.1997, can the respondents further reopen the matter compelling the petitioner to pay interest @24%? 3. Petitioner is an Association of Quarry Owners of Pakur. The members of the Association have been given permit/lease for extraction of stone within their respective area of operation. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 had formulated Rules known as Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 fixing royalty to be paid by the quarry operators and in accordance with the Rules, the members of the petitioner Association have been paying royalty. However, vide Notification No. B/Mu.3 -19/94 -5023/M dated 28.9.1994 it was notified by the State Government through the Department of Mines and Geology that by amendment in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, royalty of mines have been refixed and royalty rates have been enhanced from the date of issuance of notification. The petitioner Association challenged the enhancement as illegal and ultra vires and on the grounds that the enhancement was made at an exorbitant rate, contrary to the guidelines prescribed, in this regard, a writ application vide CWJC No. 9821 of 1994 was filed before the Patna High Court, wherein, an interim order was passed on 7.2.1995 directing that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. The writ petition was however finally dismissed on 16.10.1996 and against the order of dismissal, the petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was admitted and registered as Civil Appeal No. 5089 of 1997. After dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, the respondents issued a fresh notice on 1.11.1996 calling upon the members of the petitioner Association to pay arrears of amount of royalty with interest @ 24%. After hearing the parties on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid civil appeal, the Supreme Court on 23.8.1997 had passed the following orders: We have heard the learned Counsel on the application. As regards arrears of Royalty up to July 1997, the Lessees of the Quarries shall pay the arrears with interest @ 12% per annum in 4 quarterly installments within a period of one year. The first installment will be paid before October 1997 and the rest of the installments will be paid at the interval of 3 months. Civil Appeal No. 5089 of 1997 was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 8.8.2000.
(3.) SHRI R. Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the notice of the respondents demanding payment of royalty at the enhanced rate of interest @ 24% on being challenged before the Supreme Court in the civil appeal, the Apex Court had directed that the members of the petitioner Association shall pay royalty at the rate of 12% per annum in four (4) quarterly installments within a period of one year commencing from October 1997. The aforesaid order, according to the learned Counsel, has to be deemed as settling the issue that the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum and not 24%, as demanded by the respondents and since the order was not vacated, it has to be deemed that it has merged with the final order passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeal. Learned Counsel argues further that when the matter was pending before the High Court in CWJC No. 9821 of 1994, the interim order dated 7.2.1995 was passed which was extended on 20.2.1995, whereby a direction was given to the respondents not to lake any coercive steps against the petitioner in the matter of realization of demanded amount of royalty. As such the members of the petitioner Association have not passed the amount of royalty to the consumers and the same has therefore to be paid now from the accounts of the members of the petitioner Association. According to the learned Counsel, demand of interest at the compound rate of 24% for the entire period including the period when there was an order of stay at the time of filing of the writ application and the demand that the entire sum exceeding Rs. 4.00 crores be paid by the members of the petitioner Association at one go, is totally unjustified and unreasonable and would perpetrate injustice on the members of the petitioner Association. Learned Counsel submits further that the respondent Authority have threatened to initiate certificate proceeding against the members of the petitioner Association.;