IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Cygnet Stone Works – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 202 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226 – Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 – Schedule-2 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter as contained in memo issued by District Mining Officer, whereby petitioner has been directed to make payment of differential amount of royalty, D.M.F.T, environmental cess and Income Tax on sole ground that stone boulder excavated from mines of petitioner has been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chips, however, paid less amount with regard to prescribed rate under aforesaid heads, being wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond scope of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Held, Learned counsel for petitioner submits that before issuance of impugned letter petitioner had been paying royalty for removal of boulders from the leasehold area per hundred cubic feet per cubic meter – It is also submitted that in a similar case being W.P. (C) a Bench of this Court vide order has granted an interim order in favour of petitioner of said case by staying operation of similar letter issued by District Mining Officer – Application disposed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in memo No. 894/M dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of the differential amount of royalty, D.M.F.T, environmental cess and Income Tax on the sole ground that the stone boulder excavated from the mines of the petitioner has been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chips, however, paid less amount with regard to prescribed rate under the aforesaid heads, being wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2004’]. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notification dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) by which Schedule-2 of the Rules, 2004 has been amended to the extent of a higher rate of royalty and @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet i.e. @ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter has been prescribed for boulder, gravel and shingle which are used for making stone chips. In alternative to the above prayer, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the rate of royalty fixed @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet i.e. @ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter in respect of mineral used for making stone chips cannot be applied to such mining lessees, who are not having processing unit/crusher plant within their leasehold area.
I.A. No. 518 of 2023
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed for stay of the operation of the impugned letter as contained in memo No. 894/M dated 12.05.2022 issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before issuance of the impugned letter dated 12.05.2022, the petitioner had been paying royalty for removal of boulders from the leasehold area @ Rs. 374 per hundred cubic feet i.e. @ Rs. 132 per cubic meter. However, merely on the basis of the details obtained from JIMMS Portal of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand that particular quantity of boulders was sent to stone crusher for manufacturing of chips, the District Mining Officer, Pakur vide the impugned letter dated 12.05.2022, has directed the petitioner to make payment of royalty @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet i.e. @ Rs. 250 per cubic metre. It is further submitted that charging of two different rates for removal of boulders from the leasehold area on the basis of its end use is illegal and contrary to law. It is also submitted that in a similar case being W.P. (C) No. 2362/2022, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2022, has granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner of the said case by staying operation of the similar letter issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur.
4. Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A. III appearing on behalf of the respondents, prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit.
5. Put up this case along with W.P. (C) No. 2360/2022 and other analogous cases.
6. The operation of the impugned letter as contained in memo No. 894/M dated 12.05.2022 issued by the District Mining Officer, Pakur shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.
7. The present interlocutory application stands disposed of.
SupremeToday
The penalty provision in the lease agreement, which has statutory force, could be invoked for unauthorized transportation of minerals, and the penalty was intended to compensate the State for breach ....
Royalty is a contractual obligation distinct from taxes; amendments to regulations cannot retrospectively apply to existing contracts unless explicitly stated.
The demands raised by the Deputy Director of Mines were found to be unsustainable in the eye of law, in view of the law laid down in National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. State of M.P.,....
The main legal point established is that demands made without providing an opportunity of hearing and without considering the applicability of specific provisions are illegal and violate principles o....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the State Government does not have the jurisdiction to frame rules regarding payment of differential royalty on minerals, as it falls under t....
Penalty cannot be imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand without statutory provisions supporting such action.
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.