JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 05.06.2018 (Annex.-3) and 14.08.2019 (Annex.-5), passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority respectively to the extent of stipulation regarding payment of interest @ 15% per month.

2. Having apprised the Court about the facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the calculation sheet (Annex.7), which has been supplied to the petitioner along with the reply filed in petitioner’s earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1121/2020 so also levy of interest at an exorbitant rate of 15% per month by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was granted a quarry licence on 08.07.2010 for excavation of sandstone in Khasra No.32, 33, 34, 38, 39 and 40 in total 30 Bigha 17 Biswas.

4. As the petitioner failed to deposit licence fee, TCS and penalty amount etc., the Mining Engineer determined petitioner’s quarry licence by way of the order dated 05.10.2016. In an appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner, the Additional Director, Mines by an order dated 05.06.2018 though set aside the order dated 05.10.2016 however imposed a condition of payment of penalty of Rs.25,000/-, apart from the due licence fee and interest at the rate of 15% per month for the delayed payment. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days, for getting the quarry restored in petitioner’s favour.

5. According to the petitioner, when he contacted the Mining Engineer, he demanded licence fee for the entire period during which the quarry licence remained terminated and an exorbitant amount of late payment fee.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 63 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017”) but the same was registered and decided as a Revision Petition.

7. The petitioner in his memo of appeal (revision petition) contended that the Mining Engineer is requiring him to deposit licence fee even for the period during which the possession of the quarry was not with the petitioner and is demanding an excessive late payment fee.

8. By way of the order dated 14.08.2019, the Revisional Authority rejected the petitioner’s revision petition and enhanced the penalty amount from Rs.25,000/-(as ordered by the Appellate Authority) to Rs.50,000/-justifying the so called penalty @ 15% per month by observing that the same cannot be treated to be interest. He however allowed the petitioner to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

9. It is not disputed that the petitioner had tendered a Demand Draft of Rs.4,40,000/- on 26.02.2018, towards his dues before the respondent No.3 (Mining Engineer), even prior to the decision of the appeal, but the same was returned by the respondent No.3, as is evident from perusal of the para No.2 of the internal page 2 of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 05.06.2018.

10. Since, the respondent No.3 refused to both restore the petitioner’s quarry licence and accept the Demand Draft towards the amount due, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1121/2020 with the following prayers:-

"i. The respondents may kindly be directed to supply information to the petitioner regarding the outstanding amount for the period the quarry licence remained in possession of the humble petitioner and the petitioner may further be given appropriate time period to deposit the same with the respondents.

ii. The respondents may kindly be further directed to permit the petitioner to continue with the mining activities without any obstruction of any kind.

iii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in

favour of the petitioner.”

11. A reply to the writ petition along with a calculation sheet was filed by the respond