SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1002

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
In the Matter of : - Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 715 of 2024
Decided On : 07-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.j. Amith, Adv. Mrs. Maria Carmita Dcosta Mashelkar, Adv. Mr. Eklavya Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Deora Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Linette Rodrigues, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kullar, Adv. M/S. Legal Options, AOR
For the Respondent(s): M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Harsh V. Surana, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apurv Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv. Mrs. Satya Siddqui, Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Abdul Mannan, Adv. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR

The methodology for computing royalty under the MMDR Act is a policy decision, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing such economic policies unless they violate constitutional provisions.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 9 – Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 – Rule 38 – Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 – Rule 45(8)(a) – Challenge to the validity of Explanations to Rules regarding computation of royalty for mined ores – Petitioners contended that the compounding of royalty is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Court held that the methodology for computing royalty is a matter of policy and should be left to the legislature and executive, provided it does not violate constitutional provisions. (Paras 1, 15, 44, 61, 84)

(B) Judicial Review – Courts should exercise restraint in economic policy matters and respect the decisions made by the legislature and executive unless they are unconstitutional. (Paras 52, 70)

(C) Public Consultation – The Court directed the respondents to conclude the public consultation process regarding the compounding of royalties within two months. (Paras 84, 86)

Facts of the case: The petitioners challenged the Explanations to Rules 38 and 45, arguing that they lead to a cascading effect in royalty computation, violating Article 14.

Findings of Court: The Court found that the methodology for computing royalty is a policy decision and should not be interfered with unless it violates constitutional provisions.

Issues: Whether the Explanations to Rules 38 and 45 are arbitrary and violate Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in economic policy matters and acknowledged the ongoing public consultation process regarding the compounding of royalties.

Result: The challenge to the validity of the Explanations was addressed, and the respondents were directed to conclude the public consultation process.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution inter-alia seeking to challenge the validity of the Explanation to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, the “MCR, 2016”) and the Explanation to Rule 45(8)(a) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (for short, the “MCDR, 2017”) that stipulates the computation of royalty to be levied for the extraction or consumption of mined ores.

A. BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner no.1 herein is a mining leasehold company inter-alia engaged in the extraction of pig iron and the manufacturing and sale of its by products by way of a mining lease for iron ores in the State of Karnatak in terms of the provisions and procedure envisaged under the Mineral (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short the “2015 Amendment Act”). The petitioner no.2 herein is one of the shareholders in the petitioner no.1 company. The respondent no. 1 herein is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, whereas the respondent no. 2 herein is the Indian Bureau of Mines.

3. As per Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the (“MMDR, Act”), the revenue required to be paid for any mineral removed or consumed from the leasehold area would be in the form of royalty and mandates the mining leaseholder to pay such royalty as may be specified in the Second Schedule in respect of any minerals removed or consumed in the leased area allotted to him. Section 9 sub-section (3) of the MMDR Act further empowers the Central Government to enhance or reduce the rate of royalty payable by the leaseholders by way of a notification once every 3-years. The aforesaid provision reads as under: -

    “9. Royalties in respect of mining leases. –

    (1) The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area after such commencement, at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral.

    (2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in respect of that mineral.

    (2A) The holder of a mining lease, whether granted before or after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972 (56 of 1972) shall not be liable to pay any royalty in respect of any coal consumed by a workman engaged in a colliery provided that such consumption by the workman does not exceed one-third of a tonne per month.

    (3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification:

    Provided that the Central Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during any period of three years.”

4. Section(s) 13 and 18 of the MMDR Act respectively further empowers the Central Government to frame Rules for regulating the grant of mineral concession and for the conservation and systematic development of minerals respectively. Pursuant to the above provisions, the Central Government enacted the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, the “MCR, 1960”) which later came to be replaced by the MCR, 2016 for the computation and payment of royalty in terms of Section 9 read with Schedule II of the MMDR, Act.

5. The erstwhile MCR,

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top