JUDGMENT
O. P. Jain, J.
1. The petitioner Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. Tehrl, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter called the Corporation) has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the recovery certificates for the sum of Rs. 22,61,662 may be quashed. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner Corporation is a joint venture of the Union of India and the State of U. P. and it is engaged in the implementation of building a gigantic Power Complex. The entire assets and land belonging to Tehri Dam Project were transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1st of June. 1989 and the name of the Corporation has been mutated in the Revenue Records. For the construction of the Dam, the Corporation shifts ordinary earth in its natural form. Respondent No. 2 (Ziladhikari, Tehri Garhwal) demanded royalty on the earth shifted by the Corporation on the Dam site. According to the Corporation, no royalty was payable for this shifting of the earth and the Corporation is not liable to pay any royalty. The Ziladhikari has issued a recovery certificate to the Tehsildar for the recovery of Rs. 22,61,662. A copy of the citation is Annexure-6 to the affidavit. When the dispute was not
resolved by correspondence with the higher authorities, the Corporation has filed this writ petition with a prayer that the recovery certificate may be quashed. It is also mentioned by the Corporation that on 10th of June, 1998, on the orders of Ziladhikarl, the Assistant Collector/S.D.M., Tehri Garhwal has issued order (Annexure-13) to the Managers of State Bank of India. Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India informing them that the account of the Corporation has been attached/seized and that no payment should be made to the Corporation from the said account till the Corporation deposits the arrears of Rs. 22,61,662. The order further says that the account will be released from attachment only after the deposit is made by the Corporation.
2. We have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. S. Maurya Advocate and learned standing counsel representing the respondents and have gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has argued that the recovery certificate is illegal because the Corporation is the owner of the land from which earth is being excavated by it. It is also argued that ordinary earth is not included in the expression “minor minerals”. The expression includes building stones, gravel, ordinary clay and ordinary sand. It also includes other minerals which the Central Government may declare by Notification as “minor minerals”. It is argued that no Notification has been issued by the Central Government to include “ordinary earth” in the definition of “minor minerals” and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a minor mineral and no royalty can be demanded for the excavation of ordinary earth.
3. It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the above submission because the learned standing counsel has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. In support of the preliminary objection, the learned standing counsel has cited M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and another v. Collector of Central Excise, JT 1991 (4) SC 158, in which the following observations have been made by the Apex Court :
“We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior Officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline.
It shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with.
The Committee shall function under the ultimate control of the Cabinet Secretary but his delegate may look after the matters. This Court would expect a quarterly report about the functioning of this system to be furnished to the Registry beginning from 1st January, 1992.
Our direction may be communicated to every High Court for information of all the Courts subordinate to them.”
4. The above observations were relied upon by this Court in the case of Nagar Palika, Almora v. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Dn., Almora and others. 1995 ACJ 1286. This Court was dealing with a dispute between Nagar Palika and the Electricity Department and it was argued before the
Court that both the Municipal Board and the Electricity Board are statutory authorities and are required to discharge-statutory obligations of rendering service to the public and, therefore, they should get the dispute resolved by a Committee to be constituted for the purpose by the State Government. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the case, this Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions :
“The Government of U. P. shall set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the department concerned, department of Law and such other representatives as it may deem fit and proper within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before the Chief Secretary of the Government of U. P. Every dispute between the State Government and its public undertakings and public undertakings in between themselves shall be referred to such a Committee by the Government at the instance of any of the parties to the dispute, within three months from the date such a request is made to it and the same Committee shall consider and take a decision after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, as far as possible, within further period of six months. In case it is not possible for the committee to resolve the dispute, it shall give clearance to the contesting parties to take the matter to the appropriate Court or the Tribunal.
‘The dispute between the present petitioners and the Electricity Board shall be referred to that Committee within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Chief Secretary of the State Government. The Committee shall, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties, resolve the dispute as far as possible within six months thereafter. Till the matter is decided by the Committee the parties shall not enforce their claim demand against each other.”
5. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Nagar Mchapalika, Gorakhpur, 1997 ALJ 1257.
6. In fact the petitioner-Corporation itself requested the District Magistrate of Tehri Garhwal to refer the matter to the State Government and specifically referred to the decision of the Apex Court. This prayer was made by the Corporation in Annexure-7 in the following words :
“We humble (sic) request that the matter referred to the Stale Government (Legal Remembrance) in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in JT 1991 (4) SC 158, for deciding the controversy and the meantime recovery proceeding be stayed.”
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned standing counsel is correct and the dispute between the parties should be resolved by a Committee consisting of the representatives from the department concerned and department of Law and such other representatives as the Government of Uttar Pradesh may deem fit and proper. In view of the directions given by this Court in Nagar Palika, Almora v. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Almora and others (supra), such a Committee must have been constituted by now. If for any reason, it has not been constituted or the Committee is required to be reconstituted for the purpose of including the representatives from the department of Irrigation, Finance, etc., the State of U. P. is directed to constitute the Committee within three months from the date such a request is made to the Government by the Corporation. The said Committee shall take a decision after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, as far as possible within a further period of six months. In case it is not possible for the Committee to resolve the dispute, it shall give clearance to the contesting parties to take the matter to the appropriate Court or Tribunal. Till the matter is decided by the Committee, the respondents shall not enforce their claim/demand against the Corporation.
8. Before parting with the case, we would like to make some observations about the method adopted by the respondents for the realisation of the amount from the Corporation. According to the respondents, a sum of Rs. 22,61,662 is due against the petitioner. For the realisation of this amount, the Deputy Collector of Tehri Garhwal (Respondent No. 3) wrote a letter dated 10th June, 1998 (Annexure-13) to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Union Bank of India informing them that the account of General Manager (Project) -Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. is attached/seized. The Deputy Collector further directed the Banks that the Corporation should not be allowed to withdraw any amount from the account till it deposits the sum outstanding against it.
9. The effect of this order was that day-to-day work of the Corporation came to a standstill and it is alleged by the Corporation that it is suffering a loss of nearly one crore rupees per day.
10. It is obvious that for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 22,61,662 all the three accounts of the Corporation in three different Banks should not have been seized or attached. Such an action causes irreparable injury to the parties concerned. We, therefore, passed an interim order on 30th July, 1998, that the attachment of the Bank account shall be to the extent of the amount claimed by the respondents plus recovery charges. It should be impressed on all officers who have to recover the monies from different parties that the whole account of the party in a Bank (irrespective of the amount) should not be attached or seized. The attachment or seizure of the account should be to the extent of the amount outstanding against the person whose account has been seized or attached.
11. With the above directions this writ petition is disposed of.
12. As an interim measure, we are of the opinion that the attachment is to be allowed to the extent of the liability fixed by the Collector for which recovery certificate has been issued. We direct that the attachment of Bank account of petitioner Corporation shall be to the extent for which recovery certificate has been issued plus recovery charges. The Collector, Tehri Garhwal is directed to release the Bank account attached beyond the amount for which recovery certificate has been issued plus recovery charges. The learned counsel has pressed that Collector be directed not to compel the petitioner to take lease of the land on which the Dam is to be constructed. We are not inclined to pass any interim order in this respect.