Petitioner challenged an order dismissing her request for refund of royalty paid for an uncompleted mining permit. The Court held that royalty was not contingent on quantity extracted and dismissed the petition.
The petition seeking refund of proportionate royalty was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1291 of 2021
Petitioner :- Meharbano Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Bhan Yadav,Kabir Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents.
By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks following direction:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent No.2 refund of proportionate money as was deposit by her at the initial stage in respect of removal of sand accumulated over Plot No. 248, 249, 251, measuring total area about 1.112 Hectare situated in village Nai Majra Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur in the light of order of this Hon'ble Court dated 19.10.2020 passed in Writ-C No. 15966/2020 (Smt. Meharbano Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), within stipulated period".
It is revealed from the pleadings that being the owner of agricultural
Plot Nos. 248, 249, 251 admeasuring 1.112 hectare situated in village Nai Majra Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur, the petitioner was granted mining permit under Rule 52-A of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963) facilitating the Bhumidhars of agricultural land to apply for grant of mining permit for removal of sand and moorum accumulated due to flood on such land in form MM-8, on 3.6.2020 and was to remove 11.112 cubic meter sand till 30.8.2020 on the following terms and conditions:-
2
'krsZa
1& vuqKki=/kkjd }kjk vkosfnr LFky ls Åijh lrg ij tek ckyw dh vuqeksfnr [kuu ;kstuk ds vuqlkj gVk;k tk;sxkA
2& vuqKki=/kkjd] jkT; ljdkj dks fdlh rhljs i{k ds nkos dh {kfriwfrZ djrk jgsxk vkSj bl izdkj ds nkos dks mlds mRiUu gksrs gh Lo;a fuf'pr djsxkA
3& vuqKki=/kkjd ,slh jhfr ls [kfut fudkysxk ftlls dksbZ lM+d] lkoZtkfud ekxZ] Hkou] Hkw&xgkfn] lkoZtfud Hkw&LFky ;k lkoZtfud lEifRr rFkk o{kksa ij dksbZ ck/kk u iMs+ ;k mls {kfr u igqapsA
4& vuqKki=/kkjd laxzg fd;s x;s lHkh [kfutksa dk ys[kk j[ksxk vkSj ,rnFkZ izfrfu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks ,sls ys[kksa dk fujh{k.k djus dh vuqefr nsxkA 5& vuqKki=/kkjd }kjk vksoj yksfMax dk izHkkoh fu;a=.k gsrq fudklh LFky ij lh0lh0Vh0oh0 dSejk ,oa rkSy e'khu yxokdj funs'kky; esa LFkkfir dek.M ls.Vj esa iz;qDr vkfVZfQf'k;y bUVsfytsUl ;qDr lk¶Vos;j ls bUVhxzsV djk;sxkA bUVhxzs'ku ds fy;s rkSy e'khu esa fuEu Features dk gksuk vko';d gS%&
6& mi[kfut dk ifjogu bZ& ,e,e& 11 ij gh fd;k tk;sxkA
7& vuqefr i= es fu/kkZfjr ek=k vFkok vof/k tks Hkh iwoZ esa ?kfVr gksxh] rd gh ekU; gksxhA
8& ;fn mi[kfut dh fudklh djrs le; vU; mi[kfut fudyrk gS rks mldh lwpuk rRdky izHkko ls ftykf/kdkjh dk;kZy; dks nsuh gksxh o vU; mi[kfut dh jk;YVh dk vkadyu fd;k tk;sxk tks vkosnd dks vfrfjDr jk;YVh ds :i esa nsuk gksxkA
9& vuqKki=/kkjd le;≤ ij ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa rFkk jk"Vªh; gfjr vf/kdj.k
3
(NGT) }kjk tkjh funsZ'kksa dk ikyu djsxkA
'krsZ o izfrcU/k
1& ckyw fudklh dh xgjkbZ lrg ls 01 ehVj ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA
2& ckyw dk ifjogu okgu dks f=iky ls <d dj fd;k tk;sxkA
3& vuqKk {ks= ds ckgj ckyw dh fudklh ugh fd;k tk;sxkA 4& vuqKk i=/kkjd }kjk lhekafdr {ks= ds vUnj gh ckyw gVkus dk dk;Z djsxkA
Evident it is from the communication dated 18.6.2020 that the petitioner was found having committed breach of the provisions of Rule
40(ज), accordingly action was taken as per Rule 59(4) of the Rules of 1963
which mandates that according to the provisions provided under Rule 41-H mining work through suction machine/lifter into the water stream will be prohibited. If any lessee is found contravening the provisions of the said rule then he will be liable for penalty at the rate of Rs five lakh per occasion of contravening act, which will be recovered on the order of District Magistrate or Director, Geology and Mining. On failure to deposit of the abovementioned amount of penalty the same shall be deducted by the District Magistrate from the security money deposited against the concerned lease.
The petitioner by order dated 17.6.2020 was subjected to penalty of Rs. 5 lacs, which the petitioner deposited with the Authority. Whereafter she
4
was permitted to execute the permit for remaining period. Though it is contended that the petitioner could not operate because of the seizure of 'Pokeland' machine and could lift the sand to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs only against 11.112 cubic meter for which she paid the royalty of Rs. 14,44,560/. It is in these fact situation the petitioner seeks direction referred supra.
It is evident from the mining permit dated 3.6.2020 that the same was granted for lifting 11.112 cubic meter. For that the royalty of Rs. 14,44,560/ was charged and was not subject to the quantity of sand to be lifted. If, the petitioner committed a breach and was not allegedly able to collect 11.112 cubic meter of sand, she has to blame herself. No statutory provisions are commended as would justify the plea of the petitioner for refund of proportionate royalty.
As no relief can be granted, the petition fails and is dismissed .
No costs.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav,J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a mining permit holder is entitled to a refund of proportionate royalty upon failure to extract the full quantity of sand due to breach of conditions and seizure of machinery.
Whether the petitioner can claim refund under the Mining Rules given that royalty was charged irrespective of the actual quantity lifted.
Meharbano
State Of U P
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
