Supreme Court Rulings: Are Excess Royalty Charges by Government Departments Illegal and Arbitrary?

Cygnet Stone Works VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 96

It is further submitted that charging of two different rates for removal of boulders from the leasehold area on the basis of its end use is illegal and contrary to law. It is also submitted that in a similar case being W.P. ... cess and Income Tax on the sole ground that the stone boulder excavated from the mines of the petitioner has been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chips, however, paid less amount with regard to prescribed rate under the aforesaid heads, being wholly illegal, arbitrary and be....

MSPL Limited A Company VS State Of Karnataka - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 409

The State has no power to promulgate the impugned Rule as the entire field of royalty is covered by Central Legislation. Action of collection of additional royalty is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned Rules, filed this writ petition. ... Section 13 of MMDR Act empowers the Central Government to frame the rules including charging of royalty, dead rent. ... It is contended that Rule 4(10) provides for collection of differential #HL_S....

Pradip Kumar Joshi VS State Of Bihar - 2007 Supreme(Pat) 1489

The settlement made in favour of the petitioner do not come within the purview of this letter as such any demand made on the basis of this letter from the petitioner is illegal and all subsequent consequential actions on the basis of this letter is also illegal and arbitrary. ... The Commissioner is directed to realise the dues and for charging the royalty from the lease holder in excess of the quantity of the auctioned amount. Direction was also to amend the circular(s) in the light o....

Vista Sales Pvt. Ltd. Being Represented vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 761

It is pertinent to mention here that the GST department has acknowledged that royalty has been paid and on which they have imposed the tax and the other department i.e. Mining Department even though have charged royalty are taking a stand that no royalty has been paid, which cannot be sustained. ... (ii) To hold that the action of respondents in demanding extra amount in an ongoing tender that was accepted pursuant to acceptance of highest bid of petitioner is illegal#HL_END....

She urged that the petitioner firm was found indulged in charging excess amounts over and above the prescribed royalty collection of the minerals dispatched to specified mining areas of arbitrary fashion just in order to victimise the petitioner. ... on 01.05.2018, the petitioner’s employees were found indulged in forcibly collecting excess royalty from the mineral was collecting illegal money thereunder.

Association of United Telecom Service Providers of India vs Union of India - 2011 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 57

future payments; c) Hold and declare that the action of the Respondents in not extending the benefit of uniform charging methodology to the CDMA operators at par with the GSM operators from November 2003 onwards is discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 ... and arbitrary’?. ... More significantly, however, as a prospective effect has been given to an economic policy, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere therewith, subject of-course, to arriving the same being not arbitrary,....

Cygnet Stone Works, Jiyajori VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 84

It is further submitted that charging of two different rates for removal of boulders from the leasehold area on the basis of its end use is illegal and contrary to law. It is also submitted that in a similar case being W.P. ... cess and Income Tax on the sole ground that the stone boulder excavated from the mines of the petitioner has been transported to a stone crusher for production of stone chips, however, paid less amount with regard to prescribed rate under the aforesaid heads, being wholly illegal, arbitrary and be....

M/S RIDHI SIDHI ASSOCIATES vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENTORS

unfair, unjust and arbitrary but also absurd. ... royalty collection contracts and excess royalty collected therefrom even by the State Government itself and to require the ... The petitioners as the contractors for the State for collecting excess royalty from mining operations are mere agents. ... petitioners to pay amounts referable to such excess royalty is not only supervening illegality in the mining operation wherefrom #H....

M/S MATRIKA INFRA PROJECTS vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS

unfair, unjust and arbitrary but also absurd. ... royalty collection contracts and excess royalty collected therefrom even by the State Government itself and to require the ... The petitioners as the contractors for the State for collecting excess royalty from mining operations are mere agents. ... petitioners to pay amounts referable to such excess royalty is not only supervening illegality in the mining operation wherefrom #H....

AYODHYA PRASAD MISHRA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 Supreme(All) 1063

The petitioner contends that he is neither a holder of the mining lease nor carrying any mining operation and therefore, the realisation of royalty on purchase of minor minerals is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Similarly the Government Order charging cost of the mineral equivalent to five times the royalty was also illegal.

Sky View (Hone Cable) VS Orissa Consumers Association

The complainants had written letters to the cable operators as well as the TRAI, requesting refund of excess price/amount taken from the subscribers since December 2003, but no action had been taken by them in this regard. Their grievance is that the petitioner/OP No.1 who is providing T.V. cable service, is charging excess price from the consumers in an illegal and arbitrary manner from the subscribers in contravention of the tariff prescribed by the Telecom Regularity Authority of India (TRAI). The OP No.1 had been able to allure the subscribers through publication of adv....

K. Paramasivam & Another VS Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Chennai Telephones rep. by its Chief General Manager & Others - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 2985

The facility had been tagged on to the S.T.D. facility of the petitioners telephone number by the respondents, without the knowledge of the petitioner and without his consent. Since there was an abnormal misuse of the facility, which has been widely reported and since it had given rise to a number of litigations, the respondents had withdrawn the facilities during the months of November and December 2000. Since the unilateral act of the Department is arbitrary and illegal, they cannot demand the excess charges from the petitioner. 7. At the stage of the final hearing of th....

Om Parkash Brick Kiln owner VS State of Punjab - 2007 Supreme(P&H) 1713

It was claimed that the action of the Government for charging royalty was in accordance with law. It was also the case of the defendant- respondents that according to Section 15 of the Mines and Mineral Regulations Act, the State Government is empowered to frame rules for making provisions to charge royalty. It was also pleaded that the application moved by the plaintiff challenging the demand of royalty was rejected against which the plaintiff-firm did not approach the higher authorities.