SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(MP) 189

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. MATHUR, DEEPAK MISRA
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONLIMITED, HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 490 Of 1998
Decided On : 02/25/1999

Advocates Appeared:
P.S.NAYAR, R.S.JHA, V.R.REDDY

Slime, being a part of fine and having ferrous contents, is a mining ore and exigible to royalty under Section 9(1) of the MMRD Act read with the Second Schedule.

Headnote:

MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957 - SECTION 9 - ROYALTY - SLIME - WHETHER LIABLE TO ROYALTY - HELD, YES - SLIME IS A PART OF FINE AND HAS FERROUS CONTENTS, HENCE, IT IS A MINING ORE AND EXIGIBLE TO ROYALTY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Government Company, obtained a mining lease for extracting iron ore. It paid royalty on the basis of despatches of iron ore. A dispute arose with the State Government regarding royalty, which was settled after discussions. The petitioner regularly paid royalty on ore produced, i.e., ore lumps, ore fines, and slime. In 1985, an audit objection was raised that royalty should be paid on the entire ROM produced. The petitioner filed an explanation, and the department was satisfied. However, the Collector claimed additional royalty on the slime. The petitioner protested, and the State Government directed that no royalty was liable to be paid on slime as it was not a mineral. The Collector passed an order demanding royalty on the slime. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the demand.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that slime is a part of fine and has ferrous contents, hence, it is a mining ore and exigible to royalty under Section 9(1) of the MMRD Act read with the Second Schedule.

Issues: Whether slime is liable to royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 9 of the MMRD Act and the Second Schedule and held that royalty is payable on a proportion of the mineral extracted. Slime is a part of fine and has ferrous contents, hence, it is a mining ore and exigible to royalty.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that slime is liable to royalty.

A. K. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) ALL these four writ petitions involve common question of law; therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For convenient disposal of all the petitions, facts given in Writ Petition No. 487 of 1998 are taken into consideration.

( 2 ) THE petitioner by this petition has prayed that by appropriate writ or order or direction, letter dated 14-1-1997 issued by Collector, Bastar (Annex. P-1), order dated 30-5-1997 passed by Additional tahsildar demanding a sum of Rs. 18,58,61,568. 00 (Annex. P-2), order dated 17-12-1997 passed by Minister for Mineral resources, Department of Madhya Pradesh (Annex. P-3) and letter of the Collector dated 8-1-1998 (Annex. P-4) claiming royalty on iron ore slimes may be quashed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It is a Government Company,- an undertaking of the Central Government. The petitioner Company obtained a mining lease measuring area 672. 25 from the State Government in the year 1965 for extracting iron ore. It started production in the year 1977. Iron Ore is found in the shape of hills and these hills are blasted and the blasted material turns into boulders, fragments, fines and other extraneous materials into small pieces and they are transported by dumpers to the crushing plant erected for that purpose. The big boulders are thereafter crushed into 150 m. m. size and then the whole material is transferred to the screening plant by automatic process i. e. through conveyor belt. In the screening plant, water is pumped forpollution control, benefaction and segregation of different fragments i. e. the lump and fine. The said process, lump and fine are segregated and through conveyor system they are transported to loading yard. In the process of the said screening, waste material and extraneous material like mud, shale which forms the slurry is transported through pipeline to tailing dam where the whole material get deposited and extra water flown out. It is alleged that in the process of Running of Mines (ROM) ore is extracted and separated into 'ore Lumps', 'ore fines' and waste material is generally called 'slime' which is not an ore within the meaning of the provisions of the said enactment and it is dumped. 3 The petitioner Company pays royalty on the basis of despatches of iron ore. It is alleged that some dispute arose with the State Government with regard to royalty and the matter was finally settled after prolong discussions and under the said settlement, a sum of Rs. 70,74,791. 00 was paid to the State Government against reconciliation in the presence of representative of the Collector. It is alleged that the petitioner Company is regularly paying the royalty on ore produced, i. e. quantity of ore lump, ore fines and slime. It is alleged that in 1985, audit objection was raised by the Accountant General that the royalty has to be paid on the entire ROM produced. It is alleged that the explanation was filed and the department felt satisfied. However, the Collector Bastar by his letter dated 14-1-1997 claimed additional royalty in the sum of Rs. 18,58,61,568. 00. The petitioner Company protested that the entire royalty due in accordance with the Act has been paid and no further royalty is liable to be paid. Subsequently, by communication dated 1-4-1997, the State Government directed the Collector Bastar that no royalty is liable to be paid on Slime as it is not a mineral. By another communication dated 24-2-1997, the matter was again explained to the Collector Bastar that the expression 'slime' is not iron ore and demand raised is not well founded. Then again a detailed explanation was given by the Director (Production) of the petitioner Company by letter dated 25-4-1997 that the slime is not chargeable to royalty. Despite this explanation, a demand was served on the petitioner Company on 30th May, 1997 Annex. P-2 in the sum of Rs. 18,58,61,568. 00. Thereafter some meetings were held but on 17-12-1997 Annex. P-3, the










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top