High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Vivek Rusia, Subodh Abhyankar, JJ.
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. (S) No. 9330 of 2021
Decided On : 29-04-2022
| 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 Birla Group and is one of the largest Cement manufacturing Companies in India having its manufacturing unit located at Khor, Tehsil- Jawad, District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh (458470). For the production of cement, the petitioner requires a continuous supply of specific raw minerals viz. limestone, gypsum and additives like red ochre, laterite, bauxite etc. Some of the minerals reserves are already allotted to the petitioner by the State Government but some minerals which are not available in the State of Madhya Pradesh like Aluminum Oxide, Iron Oxide which are essential components of cement manufacturing, hence, the petitioner is importing these minor mineral from the neighbouring State of Rajasthan. According to the petitioner, the minor minerals legally excavated in the State of Rajasthan after payment of royalty amount to the State Government and complying with all statutory requirements, the suppliers dispatch to the petitioner by trucks/carriers.
2. The State of Madhya Pradesh has issued a Notification No. F-19-3-2017-XII-1 dated 22-1-2021 in the exercise of the powers conferred under section 15 and 15-A of the MMDR Act 1957 for amending Madhya Pradesh Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Rules, 1996’) by substituting sub-rule (6) of Rule 29 whereby a levy in the name of ‘Regulation Fee’ at the rate Rs. 25 per cubic meter has been imposed on minor minerals coming from other States into the State of Madhya Pradesh. In pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the District Mining Officer (in short’ D.M.O.’) has issued a press note dated 1-2-2021 directing business institutions and individuals to get themselves registered on the e-mineral portal to get transit pass. Respondent No. 4 vide notice dated 22-2-2021 has demanded the Regulation Fee at the rate of Rs. 25 per cubic meter on minor minerals coming from other States to the petitioner’s unit located at Neemuch. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply dated 26-2-2021 objecting to such demand. The petitioner has also submitted an exhaustive representation to the Principal Secretary-Mining, State of Madhya Pradesh alleging the imposition of the regulation fee is an arbitrary Act of Government. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned amendment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari, order/direction for quahsment of Rule 29 (6) so far as it relates to levy of regulation fee for issuance of a transit pass for mineral brought from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh through Notification No. F-19-3-2017-XII-1 dated 22-1-2021. Consequently, the petitioner is also seeking quashment of the demand notice dated 22-2-2021. Grounds of challenge in Writ Petition
3. The petitioner is assailing the aforesaid notification and demand inter alia on the
Maa Jalpa Enterprises vs. State of M.P.
State of T. N. vs. M.P.P. Kavery Chetty
State of Gujarat vs. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya and ors.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.