Important points:• There is no provision of law authorising recovery of seigniorage in addition to the Royalty, Dead Rent and Surface Rent that is authorised to be recovered as per the provisions of the MMC Rules.
• The levy and collection of seignorage being authorised by law, cannot be said to be illegal.

Surendra Mohan, J.

These appeals are all directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2018 of the learned Single Judge finally disposing of three Writ Petitions and a contempt case. The contempt case has been closed as per the judgment and there is no appeal against the said portion of the judgment. W.A.No.1166 of 2018 arises out of W.P.(C) No.13549 of 2014 while W.A.No.1156 of 2018 arises out of W.P.(C) No.7511 of 2018 and W.A.No.1178 of 2018 arises out of W.P(C) 39371 of 2017. All the appeals are filed by the respective Writ Petitioners. The Writ Petitioners are conducting quarries spread over Government land as well as private land owned by them. The quarrying operations on the Government land are conducted on the strength of leases issued to them. W.A.No.1166 of 2018 is treated as the leading case and the parties and the documents produced are referred to in the manner in which they are described in the said case, unless otherwise indicated.

2. There are two appellants in W.A.No.1166 of 2018, one of them is a private limited company and the other a partnership firm. They have been conducting two quarries at Ayyampuzha village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. They are in possession of varying extents of land with respect to which, they have been granted leases. Exhibit P1 dated 03.03.2008 is a copy of the lease granted in favour of the first appellant, while exhibit P2 is a copy of the lease granted in favour of the second appellant. It is not in dispute that, the leases were granted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the MMDR Act for short) and the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967, the provisions of which have been extensively amended in the year 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the MMC Rules). As per exhibit P1, the lease was granted for a period of seven years while as per exhibit P2 the lease was for a period of ten years. The said lease has expired on 14.12.2017. The lease has not been renewed thereafter. W.P.(C) No.13549 of 2014 was filed challenging the levy of seignorage by respondents 3 and 4. (exhibits P12 and P13)

3. In W.P.(C) No.7511 of 2018, what was under challenge was exhibit P18 by which seignorage was levied by the Tahsildar on the petitioner therein. In W.P.(C) No.39371 of 2017, the Writ Petitioner had challenged exhibit P8 proceedings of the District Collector by which a request for the issue of an NOC was rejected. All the three Writ Petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge together and disposed of by the common judgment against which these three Writ Appeals are filed.

4. It was contended by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the quarrying activity was being conducted by them on the strength of leases issued by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules. The petitioners had been paying the royalty, the dead rent and surface rent regularly and without any default. It was in the said circumstances that a demand for payment of seignorage was made by the Tahsildar and the Geologists by the impugned proceedings. It was contended that, since all payments stipulated by the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules were being made by the petitioners, there was no justification for demand of seignorage by the impugned proceedings that were under challenge. It was contended that, levy and extraction of seignorage was not permitted by either the MMDR Act or the MMC Rules. The State does not have the power to impose such levy on the petitioner over and above what has been permitted by the MMDR Act and the MMC Rules. The Centre by enacting the MMDR Act had taken over the power of the State in respect of regulation of mines and developments of minerals. Therefore, the State was left with no power to impose the impugned levy. It was therefore contended that, the order that was under challenge was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

5. The contentions of the petitioners