HEADLINE: Availability of Statutory Mechanism Under PDR Act Bars Writ Jurisdiction Over Contentious Questions of Fact Summary: The Jharkhand High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a dispute involving short-payment of coal royalties. The Court held that when a statute, such as the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, provides a comprehensive quasi-judicial forum for adjudicating liability—including the power to record evidence under Sections 9 and 10—the High Court will not entertain a writ petition involving complex and contested factual claims. The Bench emphasized that the Certificate Officer is not merely an executing authority but has the statutory mandate to determine the validity of the demand. Consequently, the Court relegated the petitioner and the impleaded joint-venture partner to file their objections before the Certificate Officer for a final determination on the shifting of liability.

The petitioner, PANEM Coal Mines Ltd. (a joint venture involving Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. [PSPCL]), was allotted the Pachwara Central Coal Block for captive supply to PSPCL.

In April 2011, the Assistant Mining Officer, Pakur, issued a demand notice for ₹14,87,35,277/- alleging short payment of royalty for 2010–2011.

The petitioner contended that royalty should be calculated based on the "basic pit head price" as per their Coal Purchase Agreement, rather than the higher price charged by Coal India Ltd subsidiaries.

Following the demand, a certificate proceeding (C.C. No. 32/2011-12) was initiated under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (PDR Act).

The petitioner impleaded PSPCL during the writ proceedings, claiming the liability for differential royalty lay with them, which PSPCL denied.

1. Whether a contentious and disputed question of fact regarding liability between a lessee and a beneficiary can be adjudicated by the High Court under Article 226 when a statutory remedy is available.

2. Whether the Certificate Officer under the PDR Act has the competence to determine the underlying liability of a public demand.

The Court applied Section 9 and Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which empower the Certificate Officer to hear objections, take evidence, and determine liability.

Regarding writ jurisdiction, the Court cited Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, establishing that while Article 226 is plenary, the High Court should exercise self-restraint when an effective alternative statutory remedy exists, especially in cases involving disputed facts.

The Court observed that the liability for the royalty was being shifted between the petitioner (PANEM) and respondent no. 5 (PSPCL), creating a complex factual dispute.

The petitioner argued that the Certificate Officer is merely an executing authority; however, the Court rejected this, noting that Section 10 of the PDR Act specifically mandates a quasi-judicial determination of whether the debtor is liable, including the power to take evidence.

The Court found that the statutory framework of the PDR Act (Sections 9, 10, 60, and 62) provides a full "hierarchical ladder" for redressal.

Because the petitioner itself made the matter contentious by impleading PSPCL to shift liability, a summary writ proceeding was deemed inappropriate for resolving such evidentiary matters.

The Court granted liberty to both the petitioner and PSPCL to file their objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act and directed the Certificate Officer to hear the parties and take a final decision within two months.