THDC INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press CLMA Nos. 4954/ 2014, 5305/2014, 4966/2014 and 4967 2014, therefore, same are dismissed as not pressed. In all the writ petitions identical questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. About 6 decades ago, Tehri Dam for the purpose of generating electricity was dreamed of. After different surveys, the site was finalized and lands of different habitants were acquired for the purpose of construction of Tehri Dam. Land so acquired was handed over to Tehri Dam Project. Earlier, entire project was going on under the supervision and management of Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh. Initial construction work was done by the Irrigation Department of U.P., however, in the month of July, 1988, the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation was constituted / incorporated. THDC, Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh, agreed that 12% of the generated electricity shall be supplied to the State of U.P. free of cost. For the purpose of construction of Tehri Dam, huge chunk of land was dug and ultimately, Tehri Dam, as dreamed of, came into existence. The State Government decided to recover the royalty and penalty from the petitioners saying petitioners were involved in illegal mining of minerals within Tehri Dam and Koteshwar Dam areas without taking mining lease / license, as required under Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, therefore, were liable to pay royalty and penalty under Section 21 (5) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing present writ petitions.

(2.) THE short question involved in all the petitions is, as to whether digging of the land for the purpose of underground construction or for the purpose of construction of dam would amount to "mining operations"? Section 3 (d), 4 and 21 of the Act, 1957 are being reproduced hereunder:

(3.) AS per English Dictionary, "mine" means an excavation in the earth from which some useful product is extracted. As per Bouvier's Dictionary, "mine" means an excavation made for obtaining minerals from the bowels of the earth. As per Oxford English Dictionary, "mine" means an excavation in the earth for extracting coal or other minerals. From the perusal of the meaning of "mine", as given in different dictionaries, "mine" means excavation of earth for the purpose of digging minerals therefrom. Even language of Sub Section (5) of Section 21 demonstrates that in the event of raising minerals from the land, State Government may recover cost thereof as well as royalty and tax as the case may be. Raising (taking out) mineral from the earth is sine qua non to attract Section 21 (5) of the Act. Undisputedly, earlier Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh and thereafter, THDC was involved in digging the earth with the sole purpose of construction of Tehri Dam without there being any mense rea to take out any mineral therefrom. Sand taken out after the digging of the site was used then and there for the purpose of raising different levels of the Dam. To my mind, to understand, as to whether a person is involved in mining activities, mense rea plays an important role. If digging is made solely for the purpose of construction or raising underground construction without there being any intention to take out minerals therefrom, then it would not amount to excavation of minerals from earth, therefore, shall not fall within the definition of mining operation.