M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2025:CGHC:89

¶4

AFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1251 of 2013

¶7

1 - M/s Godawari Power And Ispat Limited S/o Its Registered Office At 428/2, Siltara Industrial Area, Phase-1, Siltara Raipur, PS Civil Line Dist Raipur, Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Y.C.Rao, S/o Lt Shri Y.Mandali, Age 47 Yrs, R/o Avni Vihar, Mowa, Raipur, Ps Shankar Nagar Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Industries, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Chief Electrical Inspector State Of C.G, 36/437, 1st Floor, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶12

3 - The Superintending Engineer Office Of Chief Electrical Inspector, 36/437, 1st Floor, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶13

4 - The Senior Account Officer C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Durg, Dist Durg, Cg

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

02.01.2025

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order, issue a direction or necessary command by way of appropriate writ to quash and set aside the

¶21

-2-

¶22

impugned letter dated 19.6.2013 (Annexure P-10) issued by the respondent No.2 ; and

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order, issue a direction or necessary command by way of appropriate writ to direct the respondent No.2 consider and treat the petitioner’s crusher unit at village Gidhali, P.O. Kusumkasa, District Balod as “Other industries” under clause 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1995 and impose electricity duty @ 8% per unit; and

¶24

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.”

¶25

2. The facts of the present case are as under:-

¶26

The petitioner is a registered company engaged in the business of crushing iron ore and an iron ore mine has also been allotted to it. A certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13.6.2009. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the State Power Distribution Company Limited for the supply of Electricity to both the mines and the Crushing Stone Plant. According to a notification issued by the State Government, 40% duty on electricity supply was imposed by the State Power Distribution Company Limited. The petitioner operates a mine at Aridongri, Kanker while the iron ore crushing plant is located at Ghidhali village, which is 50 km away from the mine.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the “mine” means any excavation where operations are carried out for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals. He would contend that since the iron ore crushing plant is situated 50 km away from the mine, the petitioner is not required to pay 40% of electricity duty according to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty

¶28

3

¶29

(Amendment) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act, 1995’) dated 15.5.1995. He would further contend that respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19.6.2013 directed the petitioner to pay 40% electricity tariff for iron ore crusher plant as well, which is contrary to the explanation given in the Act, 1995 dated 15.5.1995. He would further submit that Explanation (b) of the Act, 1995, appended to the circular defines that “mine” means to a mine to which the Mines Act, 1952 applies, and includes the premises or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine. He would also submit that since the Iron Ore Crushing Plant is situated 50 km away from the mine, it does not fall within the definition of “mine” and thus, the petitioner is not required to pay Electricity Duty @ 40%. He would also contend that the Iron Ore Crushing Stone Plant should fall within the definition of other industries, as outlined in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, dated 15.5.1995, which carries 8% electricity duty. He would argue that the order passed by respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-P/10 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Mines Act as well as the Amendment Act, dated 15.5.1995 and therefore, it should be quashed. He would also argue that the State Government has issued a factory license to the Iron Ore Crushing Plant; therefore, the petitioner is not required to pay 40% electricity duty. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Vandey Matram Gittinirman (M/S) vs. MP. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2020 SCC OnLine MP 1964 .

¶30

-4-

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner itself decided to install Iron Ore Crushing Plant 50 km away from the mine. He would further submit that no such order or direction was issued to the petitioner to install the plant 50 km away. He would also submit that, typically, mine Operators establish their stone crushing plants adjacent to the mine. He would contend that the Iron Ore Crushing Plant falls within the definition of mine according to the Mines Act, 1952. He would further contend that “mine” means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching or obtaining minerals is being carried on. He would also contend that according to Section 2(1)(j)(ix) of the Mines Act, 1952, the power stations, transformer sub-stations, convertors, rectifiers and accumulators, and storage stations would come within the definition of mine. He would argue that any premises for depositing sand or other material for use in a mine, or for depositing refuse from a mine on premises exclusively occupied by the owner of the mine, are considered part of a mine. He would further argue that any premise in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine would come within the definition of mine. He would also argue that the petitioner’s Stone Crusher Plant though located 50 km away, is still under the petitioner’s control and is ancillary to the mining operation, therefore, falls within the definition of mine.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/ State.

¶33

5

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶35

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Vandey Matram Gittinirman (supra) , discussed the word ‘adjacent’ in para 21, and the definition of ‘mine’ in para 16. Both paras 16 & 21 are reproduced herein below:-

¶36

“16. For the purposes of definition of "mine" as envisaged under Section 2(1)(j) of the 1952 Act, the "mine" means any excavation where any operation for the purposes of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on and includes the items provided from sub-clause (i) to (xi) of Section 2(1)(j) of the said Act, as reproduced above. The words "in or adjacent to a mine" or "in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine" have also been used in sub-clauses (ii), (vi), (vii) and (xi) of Section 2(1)(j) of the 1952 Act. Sub-clause (viii) has used the words "all workshops and stores situated within the precincts of a mine and under the same management and used primarily for the purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management". Similarly, sub-clause (x) of Section 2(1)(j) of the Act has used the words "being premises exclusively occupied by the owner of the mine". The intent of the Legislature being that rate of duty payable in terms of Entry 3 of Part -B of the Table appended to Section 3(1) of the 1949 Act in respect of mines (other than captive mines of cement industry) would include the mine itself, the premises or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine wherein crushing, processing, treatment or transportation of the minerals as mined is undertaken. If the intent of the Legislature had been to include all the mining operations or mining activities involving crushing, processing, treating or transporting the mineral, it would not have put the words "premises or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine" in the definition of "mine" envisaged under explanation (b) of Part B of Section 3(1) of the 1949 Act. Obviously, for the purposes of "mine" under explanation (b) of Part B of Section 3(1) of the 1949 Act, the intent of the Legislature was not to include the mining activities which are not in or adjacent to a mine. The definition contained in explanation (b) of Part B of Section 3(1) of the 1949 Act is, thus, clear and unambiguous.

¶37

21. Now the question would arise as to what the word "adjacent" means in the context of the present controversy. The word "adjacent" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary Tenth Edition to mean "lying near or close to, but not necessarily touching". In Oxford Dictionary, the word

¶38

-6-

¶39

"adjacent" is defined as "situated next to or close to something". Thus, the word "adjacent would also include the nearby place or the place in the same area or the neighboring area. The word "adjacent cannot be restricted to mean "adjoining" or "abutting alone. The Privy Council in Mayor of the City of Wellington v. Mayor of the Borough of Lower Hutt ([1904] A.C. 773) observed that 'adjacent' is not a word to which a precise and uniform meaning is attached by ordinary usage. It was held that the word 'adjacent' is not confined to places adjoining, and it includes places close to, or near and what degree of proximity would justify the application of the word is entirely a question of circumstances. ”

¶40

The term ‘mine’ is defined under Section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act,

¶41

1952 and the same is reproduced herein below:-

¶42

“2. Definitions : - (1) In this Act, unless the context — otherwise requires,

¶43

***

¶44

(j) “mine” means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is — being carried on and includes

¶45

(i) all borings, bore holes, oil wells and accessory crude conditioning plants, including the pipe conveying mineral oil within the oilfields;

¶46

(ii) all shafts, in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine, where in the course of being sunk or not;

¶47

(iii) all levels and inclined planes in the course of being driven;

¶48

(iv) all open cast workings;

¶49

(v) all conveyors or aerial ropeways provided for the bringing into or removal from a mine of minerals or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;

¶50

(vi)all adits, livels, planes, machinery works, railways, tramways and sidings in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine;

¶51

(vii) all protective works being carried out in or adjacent to a mine;

¶52

(viii) all workshops and stores situated within the precincts of a mine and the same management and used primarily for the purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management;

¶53

(ix) all power stations, transformer sub-stations converter stations : rectifier stations and accumulator storage stations for supplying electricity solely or mainly for the

¶54

7

¶55

purpose of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management;

¶56

(x) any premises for the time being used for depositing sand or other material for use in a mine or for depositing refuse from a mine or in which any operations in connection with such and refuse or other material is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the owner of the mine;

¶57

(xi) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine or which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or operation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on; ”

¶58

A bare reading of the definition of ‘mine’ would make it clear that it includes excavation or any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals and it also includes borings, bore holes, shafts adjacent to mine all levels set inclined planes in course of being driven; all opencast workings, all conveyors, ropeways, planes, machinery works, railways, tramways and sidings, all protective works, all workshop and stores situated within precincts of a mine, all power stations, transformer substations, converter stations, any premises for depositing sand or other material for use in a mine. It also includes any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine on which any process ancillary to the getting dressing or operation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on.

¶59

In the present case, iron ore is being excavated at the mine by the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the Mining activities. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that it was not permissible to crush iron ore adjacent to the mine, therefore, the petitioner decided to relocate the Iron Ore Crushing Plant to a distant location, as the mining area is naxal affected. It can safely be concluded that this was not a decision by the State Government

¶60

-8-

¶61

directing the petitioner to relocate the Iron Ore Crushing Plant, but rather a decision by the petitioner to move it 50 km away.

¶62

According to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1995, notified on 15.5.1995, the rate of duty for electrical energy sold, supplied or consumed for the purposes of mines other than captive mines of the Cement Industry would be 40%, while for other industries it would be 8%. According to Explanation (b), “mine” means a mine to which the Mines Act applies, and the premises or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine and used for crushing, processing, treating or transporting the mineral. The amended Act of 1995 describes the percentage of electricity tariff. Though the term ‘mine’ is defined in the Explanation, it does not supersede the definition of ‘mine’ given under the Mines Act, 1952. In this notification, ‘mine’ is explained to avoid any dispute with regard to the applicability of the Amendment Act, 1995. Whether a mine would fall within the definition of Section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act,1952, can be decided according to the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952.

¶63

A bare reading of the definition of ‘mine’ clearly indicates that it includes premises that are in or adjacent to a mine, therefore, if a plant or any ancillary activity related to a mine is carried out outside the mine itself, it would still fall within the purview of the term ‘mine’.

¶64

In the matter of Vandey Matram Gittinirman (supra), the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while dealing with the definition of the word ‘adjacent’ held that the adjacent would

¶65

9

¶66

also include the nearby places or areas within the same or neighbouring locality. The word “adjacent” cannot be restricted to mean merely adjoining or abutting. Thus, from the law laid down by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it is quite vivid that the word ‘adjacent’ would include nearby places and neighbouring areas and cannot be limited to adjoining or abutting. Therefore, the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner supports the contention made by counsel for the State.

¶67

The petitioner could have installed the Stone Crushing Plant adjacent to or within the mining premises, and the petitioner voluntarily chose to shift the crushing stone plant 50 km away, therefore, it cannot claim the benefit of any relaxation provided under the 1995 notification. In the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 4 has rightly issued the order (Annexure-P/10) dated 19.6.2013. Thus, no case is made out for interference, and as such, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶68

The interim applications are hereby disposed of.

¶69

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No cost(s).

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶72

Nimmi

M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Richa Panwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kunjram Lodha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonali Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daitari (Died and Deleted) (Through Legal Heirs)) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. through Claim Manager Vs Hardip Singh

Tejbahadur Singh Vs Kuldeep Kour