Padmavati Road Carriers vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-State.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the entire certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 21 (MC)/2012- 13 including

Notice dated 28.04.2014 as contained in Memo No. 23 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 11,96,856/-.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only on the vague allegation, the amount in question has been saddled on

the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation. The petitioner used transport and minerals of different

persons/mine owners/dealers/traders who engaged the petitioner on their behalf to carry their materials from one place to another. He further submits

that the petitioner used to lift the materials as per the direction of the consignors from the dump-yard or stockyard or the mines of the said consignors

and used to transport the same as per guidance and instructions of the consignors. He further submits that the petitioner used to transfer or transport

the materials along with valid challan which is the only document which the petitioner had to carry. He submits that under section 23 of the Mines and

Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the Jharkhand Government promulgated Jharkhand Minerals Dealer’s Rule, 2007 and the

Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulation, 2005. He further submits that the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulation is for transportation

and dispatch of ores and minerals and while dispatching, this transit challans are to be accompanied with the consignors. He referred section 2(f) of

the said Rules which defines dealer. He further submits that all of a sudden, letter dated 05.08.2009 was issued in the name of petitioner by the

Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, stating therein that the petitioner has illegally stored iron ore in Mouza Jaipur Hatgamaharia

without obtaining the license under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rules, 2007 and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why not an

appropriate action would be taken. The said letter is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said letter was not served to the petitioner. However, the petitioner on coming to know

about the letter, informed to the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa that no stockyard/dumping/transshipment point at Mouza Jaipur, Hatgamarhia are of

the petitioner. He further submits that show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner without any valid reason. He further submits that now

certificate proceeding has been initiated wherein the said amount has been directed to be deposited by the petitioner.

Per contra, Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that petitioner has filed this writ petition whereas alternative remedy

of appeal was there after depositing 40 % amount as per Section 60 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. He further submits that

petitioner is not entitled to maintain any stock-yard or dump yard without obtaining required licence in accordance with law but the petitioner-firm

deposited the huge quantity of iron ore without obtaining any permission or license under Jharkhand Minerals Dealer’s Rules, 2007. The petitioner

has not filed any document of i.e. lifting the minerals and materials as per direction of the consigners to transport the same with valid transit challan

has not been shown at the time of inspection and in this view of the matter show-cause was issued vide letter dated 05.08.2009 and the reply of the

petitioner was given and vide Memo dated 02.06.2011 the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs, 7,77,000/-. He further submits that during

inspection and enquiry on 31.07.2009 and 04.08.2009, it was found that petitioner’s firm deposited huge quantity of iron ore without obtaining any

permission or license under Jharkhand Minerals Dealer’s Rules, 2007.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that on inspection and enquiry dated 31.07.2009 and 04.08.2009, it was found that the

petitioner deposited huge quantity of iron ore, pursuant to that notice dated 05.08.2009 has been issued. The petitioner has already replied and

considering his reply, the impugned demand has been made in view of the provision of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957

and Jharkhand Minerals Dealer’s Rule, 2007. Only notice has been issued at this stage, petitioner can also well agitate his case before the

Certificate Officer by filing objection. In view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

However, it is open to the petitioner to appear before the Certificate Officer and file his objection who will hear the certificate case and decide the

same in accordance with law without prejudice to any observation made in this order.