ORDER

Civil Appeal No. 8389 of 2001

The High Court rested its decision on the basis of the facts arising in the matter as per the pleadings before it. Therefore, we think it is not a fit case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.

Civil Appeal No. 8395 of 2001

The contention put forth in this case is that for the purpose of Section 9 of the Mines & Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 the expression “removal” would mean that it is not enough to extract the mineral from pit but should be dispatched out of the leased area. In our view, the word “removal” would mean extracting the mineral from the pit's mouth after removal from the seam. This exact point has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. SAIL, (1998) 6 SCC 476 in which this Court has stated as follows: (SCC p. 479)

“12. Another Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in National Coal Development Corpn. Case, AIR 1976 Orissa 159 while considering the question whether the coal extracted by the workmen for their own domestic consumption is exigible to levy of royalty, accepting the contention of the Revenue held ‘that removal from the seam in the min