IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
A.S. CHANDURKAR, M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
M/s. Shree Rajesh Pathak & Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue & Forest, through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 2078, 2086 of 2021 & 172, 173 of 2022
Decided On : 07-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 9-B, Section 15(1) and 23-C - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 48 - Business of excavation and sale of sand - Lease-deeds - Petitioners claim to be engaged in business of excavation and sale of sand in State of Madhya Pradesh - Petitioners are lease holders under valid lease-deeds executed in their favour by State - Petitioners sell sand that is excavated within State of Madhya Pradesh and also export same in State of Maharashtra - By Circular dated State Government through its Revenue and Forest Department required payment of an amount equivalent to 10% of royalty amount to District Mineral Foundation - It is this Circular that is challenged by petitioners who are exporters of sand into State - Petitioners have also sought a declaration that State Government has no authority under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to regulate entry of lawfully excavated minerals from another State nor is it competent to direct deposit of such amount with DMF in State of Maharashtra - Writ Petition Nos. have been filed by transporters of minor minerals challenging the imposition of an amount equivalent to 10% of royalty amount under Circular dated - It is case of petitioners that they are in business of transporting excavated minor minerals which includes such transport from other States into State - Whether contributions that were required to be made to DMF were required to be made at the rate mentioned in Rules with effect.
Finding of the Court :
Court has power to direct such refund unless there are avoidable laches on part of petitioner which could indicate either abandonment of his claim or which is of such nature for which there is no probable explanation or which will cause any injury either to respondent or any third party - Court find that ratio of aforesaid decision squarely applies to writ petitions preferred by exporters - In Writ Petition No. an amount has been recovered from petitioner as per demand notices dated - Though refund of an amount has been sought, amount actually paid towards contribution to DMF - In Writ Petition No. petitioner has sought refund of an amount recovered under demand note dated - Though an amount has been claimed towards refund, actual amount paid to DMF - Aforesaid payments having been made shortly prior to filing of writ petitions, Court find that petitioners would be entitled to relief of refund of aforesaid amounts in view of law as laid down in Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. & Others (supra).
Result : Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The competence of the State Government to require an exporter of minor minerals into the State of Maharashtra to pay an amount equivalent to 10% of royalty amount to the District Mineral Foundation constituted under Section 9-B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is questioned in these writ petitions. A similar challenge is also raised by inter-State transporters of such minor minerals as the State of Maharashtra requires payment of 10% of the royalty amount to the District Mineral Foundation on entering the State borders which according to them results in imposing restrictions on inter-State trade.
3. In Writ Petition Nos.2078 of 2021 and 2086 of 2021, the petitioners claim to be engaged in the business of excavation and sale of sand in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners are lease holders under valid lease-deeds executed in their favour by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners sell sand that is excavated within the State of Madhya Pradesh and also export the same in the State of Maharashtra. By Circular dated 05.02.2021 the State Government through its Revenue and Forest Department required payment of an amount equivalent to 10% of the royalty amount to the District Mineral Foundation (for short, ‘the DMF’). It is this Circular that is challenged by the petitioners who are the exporters of sand into the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners have also sought a declaration that the State Government has no authority under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act of 1957’) to regulate the entry of lawfully excavated minerals from another State nor is it competent to direct the deposit of such amount with the DMF in the State of Maharashtra.
4. Writ Petition Nos.172 of 2022 and 173 of 2022 have been filed by transporters of minor minerals challenging the imposition of an amount equivalent to 10% of royalty amount under Circular dated 05.02.2021. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in the business of transporting excavated minor minerals which includes such transport from other States into the State of Maharashtra. While transporting sand on the strength of a valid transit pass, the trucks of the petitioners were intercepted on the ground that 10% of the royalty amount under Circular dated 05.02.2021 was not paid to the DMF and hence their trucks came to be seized. This has given cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the Circular dated 05.02.2021 on the ground that such levy is not supported by any statutory provision under the Act of 1957, the Maharashtra District Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘the State DMF Rules, 2016’) or the Maharashtra Minor Minerals (Contribution to District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’).
5. Shri Devendra Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners who were exporters of sand in the State of Maharashtra after its excavation from the State of Madhya Pradesh referred to various provisions of the Act of 1957 and submitted that the object behind constituting the DMF was to establish a Trust as a non-profit body that would work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas that were affected by mining related operations. The exporters of sand were required to pay royalty in the State of Madhya Pradesh while undertaking its excavation. The area where such excavation was carried out would be the area affected by mining related operations. Inviting attention to Sections 2, 9-B, 15, 15-A and 23-C of the Act of 1957 it was submitted that the Act of 1957 did not confer any authority on the State Government to require any exporter of minor minerals in the State of Maharashtra to contribute to the DMF. The State Government was empowered to make rules in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1957 for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Vs. State of Punjab
State of T.N. Vs. M.P.P. Kavery Chetty
State of Gujarat & Others v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya & Others
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Others Vs. Union of India & Another
Ranjana Granites (P) Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. & Others
Kunj Beharilal Butail Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. & Others Vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong & Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.