Interest on delayed payments under the specified mining rules is discretionary, not automatic, and requires a prior demand by the competent authority. Such interest cannot be imposed as an additional condition during the grant of installment facilities without specific delegated power.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. Ext.P14 Order, which allows Ext.P13 request of the petitioner for instalments to pay the penalty demanded by the Geologist, but which also directed payment of interest, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The compass of controversy is only with respect to the demand for payment of interest, in Ext.P14. The following are the essential facts which are required to be taken stock of.

2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Ext.P6 on 13.01.2025, alleging excess and illegal mining and claiming royalty and penalty of Rs.12,42,54,213/-. To Ext.P6 show cause, the petitioner gave Ext.P7 reply. As per Ext.P8 dated 29.03.2025, the petitioner preferred an application for considering the matter in the Adalath, enabled by Ext.P3 G.O. Accordingly, the matter was considered in the Adalath and Ext.P9 Order was passed, reducing the penalty amount to Rs.6,73,65,160/-. In Ext.P9, the petitioner was called upon to place objection, if any, to the above referred amount within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of Ext.P9. The petitioner claims that he gave Ext.P10 reply to Ext.P9.

3. Ext.P11 is the Order dated 11.06.2025, which alleges that the petitioner had not shown any cause in answer to Ext.P9, nor had remitted the amount claimed thereunder. Accordingly, Ext.P11 directs the petitioner to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.6,73,65,160/- and cautions him of legal consequences, for non-compliance. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Ext.P13 application dated 18.06.2025, seeking payment by instalments of the amount covered by Ext.P11. While so, a demand notice was issued vide Ext.P12 dated 14.07.2025, calling upon the petitioner to remit the above referred amount of Rs.6,73,65,160/- within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of Ext.P12, failing which, revenue recovery proceedings were threatened. This was followed by the impugned Ext.P14 Order dated 25.07.2025, allowing Ext.P13 application for grant of instalments, but also incorporating the demand for interest at the rate of 12% per annum in respect of the five instalments granted, over and in addition to the first instalment of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. The demand for interest in Ext.P14 is the subject matter of challenge.

4. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv.Saritha Thomas, on behalf of the petitioner and Smt.Vidya A.C, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incorporation of a clause for levy of interest in Ext.P14 is illegal, inasmuch as there is no such clause or condition, either in Exts.P9, P11 and P12 demands. The petitioner has been afforded the benefit of the Adalath, pursuant to Ext.P8 application, vide Ext.P9 Order reducing the penalty amount to Rs.6,73,65,160/-. The demand was reiterated in Exts.P11 and P12, wherein also, the very same amount of Rs.6,73,65,160/- is seen reiterated. Only for the reason that the petitioner sought for instalments vide Ext.P13, the Government cannot come up with a fresh claim for imposition of levy of interest, is the point mooted. The levy of interest, demanded vide Ext.P14, in fact, militate against the very concept of Adalath, which offers some benefit/solace to persons, from whom the amounts are due to the Government. On law, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the provisions of Rules 114 and