Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Jharkhand Stone Works, through its partner, Md. Irshad Ali - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 461 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226 – Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Present writ petition has been filed for a declaration that action of respondent-State of Jharkhand in levying and collecting royalty per cubic meter on removal of stone boulders from mining lease area of petitioner on sole ground that stone boulders excavated from its mines have been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chip, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond scope of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Held, Present interlocutory application has been filed for stay of operation of impugned notification by which Schedule of Rules, has been amended to extent of a higher rate of royalty and per cubic meter has been prescribed for boulder, gravel and shingle which are used for making chips – Since no demand has yet been raised by respondent-authorities, there is no need to pass any interim order in this case – Application disposed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Shankar, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the action of the respondent-State of Jharkhand in levying and collecting royalty @ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter (i.e. @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet) on removal of stone boulders from the mining lease area of the petitioner on the sole ground that stone boulders excavated from its mines have been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chip, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Rules, 2004’]. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining them from collecting higher rate of royalty @ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter (i.e. @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet) on removal and transportation of stone boulders through the mechanism of Jharkhand Integrated Mines and Minerals Management System (JIMMS) Portal especially because the petitioner is removing only stone boulders from its mines and not stone chips and the incidence of levy of royalty is at the stage of removal of mineral from the mines. The petitioner has also prayed 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. 250/- per cubic meter (i.e. @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet) has been prescribed for boulder, gravel and shingle which are used for making chips. In alternative to the above prayer, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the rate of royalty fixed @ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter (i.e. @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet) in respect of mineral 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. 948/2023
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed for stay of the operation of the impugned notification dated 16.09.2019 by which Schedule-2 of the Rules, 2004 has been amended to the extent of a higher rate of royalty and @ Rs. 250/- per cubic meter (i.e. @ Rs. 708/- per hundred cubic feet) has been prescribed for boulder, gravel and shingle which are used for making chips.
3. Since no demand has yet been raised by the respondent-authorities, there is no need to pass any interim order in this case.
4. The present interlocutory application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 461 of 2023
5. 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.
6. Put up this case along with W.P.(C) No. 2362 of 2022 and other analogous cases.
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 ....
The judgment established the principle that granting substantial mining rights without transparency and at significantly lower royalty rates compared to prevailing market rates is unjust and violates....
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....
The central legal point established is that natural justice requires providing an opportunity for the petitioner to contest the imposition of royalty, and the imposition of royalty on non-minor miner....
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.,....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
