Back
VIVEK RUSIA, SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to regulation fees (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state's authority to impose fees on minerals (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. state government's defense of the fee's legality (Para 6) |
| 4. rejoinder: lack of competence to levy fees (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate along with Shri Sparsh Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the validity of the Notification No. F-19-3-2017-XII-1 dated 22-1-2021 published by the State Government in the exercise of the powers conferred under section 15 and 15-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMDR Act, 1957’) whereby regulatory fee Rs. 25 per cubic meter has been imposed on minor minerals brought within State of Madhya Pradesh from other State.
Petitioner’s case The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at ‘B’ Wing, Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093. The petitioner is part of Aditya Bir
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Naman Nagrath, Sparsh Prasad For the Respondent : Pushyamitra Bhargav
Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals and rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals - State Government has no legislative competence ....
Point of Law : Under Sections 15 & 23-C of MMDR Act, State has the power to regulate transport of minor minerals to check and prevent illegal mining.
The court found that including processed minerals in the definition of 'Mineral' exceeds delegated legislative power, violating the parent Act and fundamental rights, thus rendering the amendment ult....
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
The court validated the authority of the state to impose penalties for unauthorized quarrying, establishing compliance with statutory rules as per the MMDR Act.
Royalty, under the MMDR Act, is not a tax but a contractual consideration for mineral rights. State legislatures retain the power to tax mineral-bearing land, but this power is subject to any limita....
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
