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

1965 Supreme(Pat) 52

A.B.N.SINHA, H.MAHAPATRA
Laddu Mal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

Mahapatra, J.

1. In all these cases, the petitioners are brick-layers. They manufacture bricks and sell them. They were served with notices from the Assistant Mining Officer, Purnea, calling upon them to pay certain amounts of money, as royalty for the period from 1958 to 1964, during which lime they were

"engaged in manufacture and sale of bricks by using sand, earth, clay etc. which constitute minor minerals......... for which no permit or mining lease has been obtained nor any royally has been paid to Government".

Another notice from the same officer was also served on them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted under Rule 37 of the Bihar Minor Mineral (Concession Rules, 1964, as they were engaged in manufacture and sale of bricks by using sand, clay etc. which constituted minor minerals, for which no permit or mining lease had been obtained, nor any royalty had been paid to Government. The Block Development Officer also gave a notice to each of them asking them to take permit for digging earth and taking sand for manufacture of bricks and to produce accounts in respect of such manufacture.

2. The petitioners challenged all these notices, mainly on the ground th















































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top