Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 1332
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAJENDRA BABU, A.R. LAKSHMANAN, G.P. MATHUR, JJ.
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS – Respondents
Civil Appeals No. 8389 of 2001 with Nos. 8390-91 and 8394-96 of 2001
Decided on : 24-09-2003
Under Section 9 of the Mines & Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, "removal" for royalty liability is established when minerals are extracted from the pit's mouth after removal from the seam, irrespective of whether they are dispatched outside the leased area.
Headnote:(A) Mines & Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 9 - Interpretation of “removal” - Liability for royalty - The term “removal” means extracting the mineral from the pit's mouth after removal from the seam, which triggers the liability for royalty.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Interference with High Court orders - Where a decision is based on facts arising from pleadings, it may not be a fit case for interference under Article 136.
Facts of the case:
The appeals concerned the interpretation of the term “removal” under Section 9 of the Mines & Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It was contended that “removal” requires the mineral to be dispatched out of the leased area to trigger royalty liability. Another appeal challenged the factual findings of the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court held that extracting the mineral from the pit's mouth after removing it from the seam constitutes “removal,” thereby creating a liability for royalty. Regarding the other appeal, the court found no substance to interfere with the High Court's factual determinations.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the expression “removal” under Section 9 of the Mines & Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, necessitates the mineral being dispatched out of the leased area to attract royalty liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that “removal” under the relevant statute is satisfied once the mineral is extracted from the pit's mouth to the surface. This interpretation is consistent with established precedent confirming that extraction from the seam to the surface satisfies the requirements for royalty liability.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
supreme court jurisdiction
- article 136
-
supreme court jurisdiction
-
mining and mineral law
-
royalty
- liability
-
statutory interpretation
- section 9 of mines and mineral act
-
royalty
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 mine and extracting the same through the pit's mouth to the surface satisfy the requirement of Section 9 in order to give rise to liability for royalty’. This view of the High Court found approval by this Court in National Coal case and this Court held that the lessee in that case was liable to pay royalty for the coal supplied to its workmen for consumption.”
In this view of the matter we find no substance in the matter. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
