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) 185

2000 (1) JLJ 12
A.K. Mathur, C.J. and Dipak Misra, J.
National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of M.P. and another
W.P. No. 487 of 1998; Decided on 25.2.1999.

Advocates:
V.R. Reddy with P.S. Nair for petitioner;
R.S. Jha, Dy. Advocate General for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 -- S. 9 -- royalty -- is to be charged on minerals the moment minerals are removed from leased area. [Para 7]

       (2) Words and Phrases -- word‘ royalty‘ -- means payment to the owner of minerals for the right of working the same on every ton or other weight raised, etc. Wharton‘s Law Lexicon 14th Ed., p. 833 relied on. [Para 7]

       (3) Words and Phrases -- word "royalty‘ -- means compensation for the use of property, etc. Black‘s Law Dictionary 5th Ed. relied ad. [Para 7]

       (4) Constitution of India -- Art. 366(28) -- royalty on mines and minerals -- cannot be a fee but a levy of nature of a tax -- it does come under definition given under. Venkataramaiya"s Law Lexicon & Legal Maxims Vol. 3, p. 2128 relied on. [Para 7]

       (5) Words and Phrases -- word ‘royalty‘ -- means a periodical payment to the owner of minerals by a party authorised to extract and remove the minerals. Oxford Companion to Law, p. 1092 relied on. [Para 7]

       (6) Words and Phrases -- word‘ royalty‘ -- means compensation or portion of proceeds paid to the owner of a right, etc. New Webster‘s Dictionary, p. 838 relied on. [Para 7]

       (7) Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 -- S. 9 Sch. II Item 21 -- slime is part of iron ore -- royalty is leviable on it. (1998)6 SCC 476 followed. [Paras 8 & 9]

       ¼1½ [kku rFkk [kfut ¼fofu;eu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957&/kkjk 9&LokfeRo&;g [kfutksa ij mlh {k.k çHkkfor fd;k tkuk gksxk tc [kfut iV~Vk&{ks= ls gVk, tkrs gSaA ¿iSjk 7

       ¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&‘‘kCn ^LokfeLo*&vFkZ gS] çR;sd Vu vFkok Hkkj ds vuqlkj mBk, x, [kfut ij [kfut ds Lokeh dks mlds lapkyu ds vf/kdkj ds fy, lank;] vkfnA OgkVZu Ñr ykW ySfDldu] 14ok¡ laLdj.k] i`"B 833 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7

       ¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&‘‘kCn ^LokfeLo*&vFkZ gS] laifÙk ds mi;ksx ds fy, çfrdjA CySd Ñr ykW fMD‘kujh] 5ok¡ laLdj.k voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7

       ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq-366 ¼28½&[kkuksa vkSj [kfutksa ij LokfeRo&Qhl ugha gks ldrh fdarq djds Lo:i dk mn~xzg.k gSa&;g blds v/khu dh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ds varxZr vkrk gSA oSadVjeS;k Ñr ykW ySfDldu ,aM yhxy eSfDlEl] ftYn 3] i`"B 2128 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7

       ¼5½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&‘‘kCn ^LokfeRo*&vFkZ gS] [kfut ds fudkyus vkSj gVkus ds fy, çkf/kÑr i{k }kjk [kfut ds Lokeh dks vkof/kd lank;A vkDlQksMZ daisfu;u Vq ykW] i`"B 1092 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7

       ¼6½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD;&‘‘kCn ^LokfeRo*&vFkZ gS] fdlh vf/kdkj ds Lokeh dks çnÙk çfrdj vFkok vkxe dk HkkxA U;w osDLVlZ fMD‘kujh] i`"B 838 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 7

       ¼7½ [kku vkSj [kfut ¼fofu;eu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957&/kkjk 9 vuqlwph 2 ean 21&voiad yksg v;Ld dk Hkkx gS&LokfeRo] bl ij mn~xzg.kh; gSA ¼1998½ 6 ,l lh lh 476 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8 ,oa 9

ORDER

(Mathur, C.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. PI), order dated 30.5.1997 passed by Additional tahsildar demanding a sum of Rs. 18,58,61,568.00 (Annex. P2), order dated 17.12.1997 passed by Minister for Mineral Resources, Department of Madhya Pradesh (Annex. P3) and letter of the Collector dated 8.1.1998 (Annex. P4) 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 are 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 for pollution control, beneficiation 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 'are Lumps', 'are 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.

3A. 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. P2 in the sum of Rs.18,58,61,568.00. Thereafter some meetings were held but on 17.12.1997 Ann. P3, the Minister Passed a detai












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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