Allowed

M/S.Maa Santoshi Ind v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC22 Sept 2021WP(C)/14809/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench quashed four orders of the Mining Officer, Keonjhar, directing recovery of deficiency of minerals. The court held that such recovery is beyond the scope of Rule-18, which prescribes only penalties. The matter was disposed of without orders on costs, leaving the authority free to take appropriate action regarding the deficiency under the relevant law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed four orders of the Mining Officer dated 28.04.2010, 05.01.2011, 09.04.2012 and 04.05.2012 directed for recovery of deficiency of minerals.

M/S.Maa Santoshi Ind Vs State and Ors. — Mining and Natural Resources | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14809 of 2012

¶3

M/s Maa Santoshi Industries

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Subir Palit, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

….
State of Orissa & others Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
22.09.2021
Order No.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶8

¶9

This matter was listed on 09.09.2021. On that day, the case could not be disposed of. Hence, it is listed today in the “To Be Mentioned” category.

¶10

We have heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶11

This matter is covered by order of Division Bench passed in W.P.(C) No.1415/2013 on 20.08.2019.

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

By way of filing this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the opposite party no.4-Mining Officer, Keonjhar on 28.04.2010 in Annexure-2, 05.01.2011 in Annexure-3, 09.04.2012 in Annexure-5 and 04.05.2012 in Annexure-6, respectively.

¶15

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties ordered for recovery of deficiency is beyond the scope of Rule-18 of the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of theft, Smuggling & Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007. It is submitted that only penalty can be imposed. It is not disputed that by passing the impugned order the Mining Officer, Keonjhar has directed the petitioner for realization of cost of price of ores/minerals found shortage/excess in course of physical verification. However, the Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules, 2007 provides for penalty. It reads as follows:

¶16

“18. Penalties - (1) Whoever undertakes or causes to undertake illegal mining, transports or stores any mineral otherwise than with the provisions of Section 4 (1) and or 4 (1A) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both and in the case of continuance of such illegal activity with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for each day during which such illegal activity continues after conviction for the first such contravention.

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of these rules shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both and in the case of continuation of contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for each day during which such contravention continued after conviction for the first such contravention.

¶20

(3) Whenever any lease-holder transports the mineral raised in his lease without a valid permit or valid transit pass or in excess of the quantity and quality permitted or mentioned in the transit pass, it shall be treated as violation of the provisions of these rules and breach of the covenants of the lease and shall be liable for penalty as provided.”

¶21

Upon careful examination of the aforesaid Rule, it appears that the order impugned demanding cost of excess use of shortage of minerals is beyond the scope of Rule-18 of the aforesaid Rules, 2007 and in fact, in this case the Rule-18 of the aforesaid Rules, 2007 is not maintainable. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. Hence, we further hold that there is no provision of recovery of deficiency under Rule-18 of the aforesaid Rules, 2007.

¶22

Hence, we allow the writ petition. The orders dated 28.04.2010 in Annexure-2, 05.01.2011 in Annexure-3, 09.04.2012 in Annexure-5 and 04.05.2012 in Annexure-6 are hereby quashed.

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

// 4 //

¶25

However, it is open for the authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no orders as to the costs.

¶26

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶28

(S.K. Mishra )
Judge
(Savitri Ratho )
Judge
pcd

¶29

Page 4 of 4

M/S.Maa Santoshi Ind v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Maa Santoshi Ind v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Priti Oil Limited Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Priti Oil Limited Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Jain Vs Dr.Krishna Kumar

M/S.Sidhant Mines and Vs State and Ors.

Gobinda Ch.Nayak Vs Bharata Mallik and or

M/S.S.P.Mines and Indu Vs State and Ors.