KALYANAM TILE CO MANALY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner ia a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling tiles and bricks. The earth required as raw material for the manufacture of tiles and bricks is being purchased by it from various suppliers. Petitioner does not directly engage itself in the work of digging out or excavating earth for its manufacturing process. The second respondent issued Ext. P1 calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 1,971.25 as royalty for the clay used in its manufacturing process. Since the petitioner did not pay the amount demanded, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were initiated. The 4th respondent issued Ext. P2 notice under S.34 of the Revenue Recovery Act demanding the above amount. Petitioner challenged Exts. P1 and P2 before this Court in O.P. No. 3404 of 1978. That petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P3 judgment directing the petitioner to file a revision before the Government. In pursuance to that direction petitioner filed Ext. P4 revision under R.49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Government by Ext. P5 order rejected the revision petition. Hence this original petition.

(2.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P1, P2 and P5. He also prays for a declaration that R.17, 48A and 48L of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession R.1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are invalid, inoperative and ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) The power of the Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals is dealt with by S.15 of the Act. Clause(l) of that Section provides that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining lease or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. This provision, according to the learned counsel, empowers the Government to frame fuels regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining lease and other mineral concessions. Those rules can also cover matters connected with the above purposes namely quarry leases, mining lease or other mineral concessions. In other words, the rules cannot regulate the activities of the person who purchases the minor minerals from one who has obtained the quarry lease, or other concessions. Clause (3) of S.15 of the Act provides that the holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule shall pay royalty in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sublessees at the rate prescribed in the rules. This provision, according to the learned counsel authorises the Government to frame rules providing for levy of royalty in respect of mineral removed or consumed by the holder of a mining lease, his agent, manager; employee, contractor or sublessees. In other words, the argument is that royalty can be levied only from the holder of a mining lease, his agent, manager, employee, the contractor or subleassee and not from any ether person like the purchaser from the above mentioned persons.