Dismissed

Sri Bommalingaiah v. Katapurmath v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2021WP/2630/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of five writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Rule 36(5) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016. The court dismissed the petitions as identical matters were already decided by the Division Bench, holding that the rule was not ultra vires the parent Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed as identical issues were already adjudicated.

Sri Bommalingaiah v Katapurmath Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2630 OF 2020 C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.14811 OF 2018, 24706 OF 2019, 24707 OF 2019, 2782 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

¶9

W.P.No.2630/2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI BOMMALINGAIAH V KATAPURMATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O VEERABADHRAIAH KATAPURMATH RESIDING AT BANDARGAL VILLAGE KUSTAGI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231

¶12

....PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

¶17

(MSME AND MINES),VIKASASOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶18

BANGALORE-560 001

¶19

¶20

2 . THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

3 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN KOPPAL-583 231

¶22

….RESPONDENTS

¶23

(SRI S.S.MAHENDRA., AGA)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE 36(5) THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 DATED 12.8.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID & ETC.

¶25

W.P.No.14811/2018

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI SIDDESHWARA INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S THEJASVI SON OF SIDDESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.1762/15, 22^ND CROSS, GOVINDARJA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 040.

¶28

....PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI PRAKASH.B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶32

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

¶33

¶34

(MSME AND MINES),VIKASASOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶35

2 . THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, R.C. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶36

….RESPONDENTS

¶37

(SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA., AGA)

¶38

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT RULE 36(5)OF THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 DTD. 12.08.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNX-E VIDE NO. CI 418 MMN 2015 (PART) BENGLAURU, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY& ETC.

¶39

W.P.No.24706/2019

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SRI A. HEMANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA RESIDING AT NO. 482, 11^TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 080.

¶42

....PETITIONER

¶43

(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES),VIKASASOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶46

¶47

2 . THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶48

….RESPONDENTS

¶49

(SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA., AGA)

¶50

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE 36(5) THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 DATED: 12.08.2016 PRODUCED AT ANEXURE-J IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VIOD; CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶51

W.P.No.24707/2019

¶52

BETWEEN:

¶53

SRI M.V. VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O M.V. VENKATA REDDY MANDIKAL VILLAGE & POST CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶54

....PETITIONER

¶55

(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶56

AND:

¶57

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES),VIKASASOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶58

2 . THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶59

¶60

KHANIJABHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶61

….RESPONDENTS

¶62

(SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA., AGA)

¶63

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT RULE 36(5) THE KARNATAKA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2016 DATED: 12.08.2016 PRODUCED AT ANEXURE-J IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VIOD; AND ETC.

¶64

W.P.No.2782/2020

¶65

BETWEEN:

¶66

M/S. SHASHIKIRAN GRANITES WARD NO. 7, ALAMPUR PETH, ILKAL BAGALKOT DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. VENKATESH S. THANGADAGI AGED ABOUR 42 YEARS.

¶67

....PETITIONER

¶68

(BY SRI. PRAKASH.B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶69

AND:

¶70

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MSME AND MINES),VIKASASOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶71

2 . THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KHANIJABHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶72

¶73

3 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN

¶74

KOPPAL-583 231

¶75

….RESPONDENTS

¶76

(SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA., AGA)

¶77

¶78

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

Learned counsel for the petitioners was fair enough in

¶81

informing this Court that identical writ petitions have already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court i.e., W.P.No.58505/2016 and other connected matters decided on 01.06.2020. He has stated that in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the present petitions also deserves to be dismissed.

¶82

Paragraphs 81 to 83 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

¶83

¶84

"81. Thus, it is crystal clear that the 'additional periodic payment' or 'average additional periodic payment' cannot be levied on a licensee under sub-rule (1) Rule 32 who is the owner of patta land and who is also the owner of the minerals in sub-soil.

¶85

That takes us to sub-rule (5) of Rule 36 which requires grantee of a lease or a licensee to pay one tenth (1/10^th ) of the royalty amount of the highest permitted annual production quantity mentioned in the environmental clearance in advance as a performance guarantee in the form of Bank guarantee, fixed deposit receipts or demand draft before the quarrying operations starts. An argument was canvassed that there is no provision in the said Rules of 1994 for computing the royalty on the basis of the highest permitted annual production quantity mentioned in the environmental clearance. The rates of royalty are specified in Schedule-II to the said Rules of 1994 and there is no provision made for charging royalty on the basis of the highest permitted annual production quantity mentioned in the environmental clearance. The third proviso to Rule 36 confers power on the State Government to provide for payment of royalty on any mineral to be charged on ad valorem basis on sale value or average selling price of the mineral or the

¶86

¶87

notified royalty per cubic meter or per metric tone, whichever is higher.

¶88

Section 9 of the said Act of 1957 provides for levy of royalty. However, by virtue of Section 14, Section 9 is not applicable to the minor minerals which are dealt with by the said Rules of 1994. Under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 36, the royalty is payable in respect of the mineral removed or consumed by holder of a lessee or licencee. Therefore, sub-Rule (1) of Rule 36 can be broadly termed as a charging provision for imposing payment of royalty. The title of Rule 36 is “Payment of royalty and dead rent in advance”. Moreover, neither in the provisions of the said Act of 1957 nor under the said Rules of 1994, there is any prohibition on making a demand of payment of royalty in advance.

¶89

Now, coming back to the rule making power conferred on the State Government under the said Act of 1957 under which the said Rules of 1994 have been framed, we find that under sub-section (1) of Section 15, there is a power to make Rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. Clause (g) of subsection 1-A of Section 15 confers a rule making power for fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent

¶90

¶91

and the manner in which the same shall be payable. The rule making power conferred is to frame Rules laying down the manner in which levy of royalty is to be made. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 36 provides for payment of royalty in advance in the form of a performance guarantee. Thus, it is also a mode or manner of payment of royalty. Even if advance royalty amount is recovered, it is always subject to refund or adjustment. Sub-rule (5) is some sort of a guarantee to ensure payment of royalty. The guarantee given under the provision can be invoked only when the royalty is due and payable by the Licencee, but it is not paid by him within stipulated time. The guarantee cannot be invoked if the licence holder is not at all liable to pay the royalty. Therefore, in our view, the provision of sub-rule (5) of rule-36 is not ultra virus of the said Act of 1957. There is nothing to show that it violates any Constitutional provision. It is not shown to be manifestly arbitrary."

¶92

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petitions. They are also dismissed.

¶93

¶94

No order as to costs.

¶95

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Bommalingaiah v. Katapurmath v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bommalingaiah v. Katapurmath v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasamurthy T R Vs the Bangalore Development Authroity

Sri Prashanth Rao Vs the Secretary the Rama Mandira Trust

Shri M U Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Chiranth H S Vs the State of Karnataka

P Lathavya Acharya Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bright Rocks and Minerals Vs the State of Karnataka