SATYENDRA KUMAR TOMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the demand notice dtd. 1/6/2022, recovery certificate dtd. 28/6/2022, and the recovery citation dtd. 9/9/2022, issued against the petitioner for the failure of the petitioner to deposit the licence fee in respect of the mining concession granted to the petitioner for mining of RBM / minor mineral. The petitioner was liable to pay Rs.6,07,53,495.00 towards royalty for a period 15/5/2020 to 14/5/2021, and Rs.6,68,28,845.00 for the period 15/5/2021 to 14/5/2022.

(2.) As per the notice issued to the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has extracted 34,981.37 tonnes of minor minerals, whereas the petitioner has deposited only Rs.1,47,51,000.00. The total liability in respect of the said two years comes to Rs.13,20,70,340.00, thereby leaving a balance of Rs.11,73,19,340.00.

(3.) The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not carry on the mining activity in terms of the mining lease due to the amendment carried out by the State, inter alia, in Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 2001, vide Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession)(Amendment) Rules, 2021, on 28/10/2021. The petitioner submits that by the said amendment the respondents started granting concession rights to Bhumidhars for concession of RBM from their land at rates of royalty which are about 1/7th of the rate at which the petitioner was granted the right to mine the minerals. Consequently, the petitioner has not been able to mine and sell the mineral in respect whereof the licence was granted.