Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ.
G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. Ahmedabad, Gujarat v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 26525 of 2019 (Gwalior); Decided on 13.6.2022
¼1½ [kku v©j [kfut ¼fodkl v©j fofu;eu½ vfèkfu;e] 1957 & èkkjk 3¼³½ & eŒçŒ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 & fuŒ 1 ¼bDdhl½ & x©.k [kfut & rkRi;Z & lkèkkj.k feV~Vh x©.k [kfut gS & d¢Uæh; ljdkj }kjk ;Fkk vfèklwfpr eqje Òh x©.k [kfut gSA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 8½
¼2½ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 68¼3½] ijarqd ¼vla'k¨fèkr½ & j‚;YVh ds lank; ls foeqfDr & ;kph d¨ jsy iVjh dh rhljh ykbu fcNkus dk Bsdk fn;k x;k & mlus 1]36]000 ÄuehVj lkèkkj.k feV~Vh dk mR[kuu djus d¢ fy, vLFkk;h vuqKki= gsrq vkosnu fd;k & j‚;YVh ds Hkqxrku dk ekax lwpuki= ;kph d¨ tkjh fd;k x;k & j‚;YVh dk Hkqxrku fd, fcuk gh [kuu lafØ;k vkjaHk dj nh xbZ & 'kkfLr vfèkj¨fir djus dk dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuki= tkjh fd;k x;k & mldk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k & j‚;YVh dk vfxze esa Hkqxrku djus ls foeqDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & la'k¨fèkr ijarqd d¢ vèkhu Òh ;kph d¨ foeqDr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & j‚;YVh dk vfxze esa Hkqxrku fd, tkus ij gh vuqKk nh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 9 ls 11½
¼3½ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 68¼3½] ijarqd ¼vla'k¨fèkr½ & 'kCn ^^jkT; d¢ ljdkjh foÒkx^^ & fuoZpu & 'kCn ^^jkT;^^ d¨ eè; çns'k jkT; le>uk g¨xk & d¢Uæ ljdkj lfgr jkT; ugha & ,sls fuoZpu ls fu;e¨a d¢ micaèk¨a dk vfrØe.k gh ugha g¨xk] vfirq fu;e 68 Òh fujFkZd gks tk,xkA ¼iSjk 10½
¼4½ fofèk dk fuoZpu & fl)kar & dkuwu esa ç;qDr 'kCn¨a d¨ loZçFke mud¢ LokÒkfod] ewy ;k çpfyr vFkZ esa le>uk g¨rk gS & tc rd fd og csrqdsiu ;k vlaxfr dh v¨j ugha ys tkrk g¨] vFkok tc rd fd lanÒZ esa ;k dkuwu d¢ mn~ns'; esa ,slk dqN ugha gks tks rRçfrdwy lq>krk gksA ¼2004½ 6 ,l lh lh 672 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10½
¼5½ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 68¼3½] ijarqd ¼la'k¨fèkr½ & ykxw g¨uk & lkèkkj.k feV~Vh v©j eqje dk mR[kuu djus d¢ fy, j‚;YVh lank; djus ls foeqfDr & ,slh foeqfDr ijarqd lekfo"V fd, tkus ds fnukad d¢ i'pkr~ tkjh dh xà fufonkv¨a dks gh ykxw g¨xhA ¼iSjk 11½
¼6½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPnsn 14 & eŒçŒ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 & fuŒ 68¼3½] ijarqd & fu;e 68 u r¨ vfèkdkjkrhr gh] v©j u vuqPNsn 14 dh voKk esa gh & j‚;YVh ds lank; ls foeqfDr dk fofu'p;u djus ds fy, jkT; ljdkj HkyhHkkafr l{ke gSA ¼iSjk 11½
¼7½ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 53 & 'kkfLr dk vfèkj¨i.k & j‚;YVh dh voèkkfjr jkf'k lanRr ugha dh xà & ifjogui= tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldk & mR[kuu xfrfof/k esa jr gksuk iw.kZr% voSèk & j‚;YVh dk lank; fd, tkus ,oa 'kkfLr vfèkj¨fir djus d¢ fy, tkjh lwpuki= esa d¨Ã voSèkrk ugha & rFkkfi] laiw.kZ j‚;YVh jkf'k dk lank; fd, tkus dh n'kk esa l{ke çkfèkdkjh 'kkfLr vfèkj¨fir djus esa vius foosdkfèkdkj dk ç;¨x U;k;lEer :i ls djrs gq, vfèkj¨fir 'kkfLr d¨ de djus ij fopkj dj ldsxk & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14½
(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -- S. 3(e) -- M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R.1 (xxi) -- minor minerals -- meaning -- ordinary clay is minor mineral -- murrum is also a minor mineral as notified by Central Government. [Paras 6 & 8]
(2) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R. 68(3), proviso (unamended) -- exemption from payment of royalty -- contract for laying third line of railway track awarded to petitioner -- he applied for temporary permit for excavating 1,36,000 cu.m. ordinary clay -- demand notice for payment of royalty issued to petitioner -- mining operations started without payment of royalty -- show cause notice issued for imposing penalty -- same not paid -- payment in advance of royalty cannot be exempted -- even under amended proviso, petitioner cannot be exempted -- permission shall only be granted on payment inadvance of royalty. [Paras 9 to 11]
(3) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R. 68(3), proviso (unamended) -- words “Government department of the State” -- interpretation -- word “State” has to be understood as State of Madhya Pradesh -- not as State including Central Government --such interpretation shall not only be tantamount to violence of provisions of Rules, but shall also render rule 68 otiose. [Para 10]
(4) Interpretation of Statute -- principle -- words used in statute are first to be understood in their natural, original or popular sense -- unless such recourse leads to absurdity or inconsistency, or there is something in context or in object of statute to suggest contrary. (2004) 6 SCC 672 referred to. [Para 10]
(5) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R. 68(3), proviso (amended) -- applicability -- exemption from payment of royalty for excavating ordinary clay and murrum -- such exemption shall only apply to tenders issued after date of incorporation of proviso. [Para 11]
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R. 68(3), proviso -- rule 68 neither in excess of powers nor affront to Article 14 -- State Government is well within its competence to decide exemption from payment of royalty. [Para 11]
(7) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R. 53 -- imposition of penalty -- determined amount of royalty not deposited -- transit pass could not be issued -- indulgence in excavation activity wholly illegal -- no illegality in notice issued for payment of royalty and imposition of penalty -- however, in event that royalty amount is paid in full, competent authority shall judiciously exercise discretion in imposing penalty and may consider reduction in imposed penalty -- petition dismissed. [Paras 12 to 14]
ORDER
Arya, J:- 1. Petitioner, a Corporate entity, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is said to have entered into a joint venture (“JV” for short) with other Corporate entities, as described in paragraph 5.5 of the writ petition and, as a lead partner of the JV, it is said to be authorised to represent the JV for all intents and purposes including dealing with Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. (for brevity “RVNL”) with regard to execution of concerned projects.
2. The RVNL appears to have invited tenders/bids on 19.10.2016 for various nature of construction works including construction of Third Line (Railway Track) between Dhaulpur to Aantri, as described in paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 of the writ petition. The contract was awarded vide contract agreement dated 21.3.2018 entered into between RVNL and JV under the name and title of “GRIL – COBRA- KIEL (JV)”. .
As construction work in question also included earth work, the petitioner had applied for temporary permit on 25.2.2019 in the Office of Collector (Minerals), District Gwalior for excavating 68000 cu.m. of ordinary clay required in relation to laying down of third line from Dhaulpur to Antri from private land falling in Survey No.1421 admeasuring 3.553 hectares at Village Antri, Tahsil Chinaur, District Gwalior.
With reference to the above application, the impugned demand letter dated 3.5.2019 (Annexure P/1) has been issued calling upon the petitioner to deposit royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per cu. m. for excavating 68000 cu.m. of ordinary clay; minor mineral from the area of 3.553 hectares of private land falling in Survey No.1421 at Village Antri, Tahsil Chinaur, District Gwalior in advance in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 68(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1996”) so that the application could be further processed.
It appears that the petitioner has also applied for temporary permit for excavating 1,36,000 cu. m. area out of 28.480 hectares falling in Survey Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 90 at Village Naikpura, District Morena. Vide second impugned communication dated 28.1.2020 (Annexure P/10) issued in reference to official communication dated 24.10.2019, petitioner has been called upon to pay royalty of Rs.68,00,000/- (Rupees sixty eight lacs) at the rate of 50/- per cu.m. in terms of the revised rates notified vide gazette notification No. 01/F/19-5/2019/12/1 Bhopal, dated 1.1.2020 (Annexure R/3-5).
Besides, as the petitioner had already started mining operations in the area described in the second impugned communication dated 28/1/2020 without depositing the amount of royalty in advance as contemplated under Rule 68(3) of the Rules of 1996, a notice was issued by the Collector, Morena on 12.2.2020 (Annexure P/11) to show-cause as to why penalty of Rs. 61,20,000/- which is thirty times the amount of royalty i.e. Rs.2,04,000/- be not imposed upon the petitioner for excavating 4080 cu.m. of ordinary earth and the reply was directed to be filed by 2.3.2020. Subsequently, another show-cause notice dated 2.6.2020 (Annexure P/12) has been issued to the petitioner similar to the previous one extending the time to file reply upto 15.6.2020.
As such demand letter dated 3.5.2019 (Annexure P/1), demand letter dated 28.1.2020 (Annexure P/10), show-cause notice dated 12.2.2020 (Annexure P/11) and show-cause notice dated 2.6.2020 (Annexure P/12) are under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The impugned demand letters (Annexures P/1 and P/10) have been challenged primarily on the premise that proviso appended to Rule 68(3) of the Rules of 1996 inserted vide notification no. F-19-3-2011-XII-1 dated 6-9-2013 and reads as under:
“Provided that the royalty on ordinary clay and murram shall not be payable for all construction works carried out or to be carried out under the public sector, authority, board, local body of the State Government or Government department of the State.”
if read conjointly with Rule 68(1)(i) of the Rules of 1
Royalty obligations under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2013 do not extend to private construction projects, only applying to government-related works.
Royalty obligations under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2013 do not extend to private construction projects, only applying to government-related works.
Excavation of earth for development and levelling of the same land does not require additional permission or royalty payment.
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....
Supreme Court had enunciated in clear and unambiguous terms that excavation of ordinary earth for construction of building purposes / development would not attract levy of royalty and penalty under p....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth ....
The purpose of excavation determines liability for royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, 1966, and excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes does not attract royalty a....
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
