JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Veer, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the demand letter No. 2127 Mines/2002 dated 1-11-2002 issued by respondent demanding a sum of Rs. 7,14,835/- on account of royalty and penalty being illegal, void and inopera tive as the provisions of Mines and Min erals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and U. P. Minor Mineral (Conces sion) Rules, 1963 are hot applicable to the petitioner since the petitioner is not carrying out any mining operations.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case according to the petitioner are that petitioner had purchased a property known as WHYTBANK Castle Estate, the Bridge, Outhouses, Cottages and Servant quarters etc. having an area of about 9 acres through Registered Sale Deed dated 4-1-1991 which is duly registered in the of fice of sub- registrar, Mussoorie, Distt. Dehradun. After the purchase of the said property, the petitioner demolished the existing construction and constructed a Hotel after getting the plan sanctioned which is now known by the name of Jay Pee Residency Manor and the boulders etc. gained during the course of digging the foundation for the building, the same were again used in filling work. Thereafter, the District Magistrate had called for certain information regarding digging/excavation done by petitioner for construction of Five Star Hotel and the said information was supplied through letter dated 1-8-1994. The petitioner informed, the D. M. concerned that about 4,800 cu m. usable stones were salvaged from the excavation. Thereafter, there had not been any response to the letter till 20-5-1996 when District Magistrate's letter was received asking for Royalty of Rs. 7,13,835/- and pen alty of Rs. 1,000/- failing which the pe titioner was threatened a suit would be filed in the court. The petitioner replied the said letter through letter dated 28-5-1996 and submitted that the provi sions of the U. P Minor Mineral (Conces sion) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules) are not at tracted in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner by means of the said letter also requested for personal hearing for representation of the' case. Subse quently, after the formation of State of Uttaranchal, on 16-8-2002, a demand was again made from the office of Dis trict Magistrate, Dehradun for depositing the amount in question. The petitioner vide his letters dated 20-8-2002 and 2-9-2002 submitted that the demand is il legal and unjustified and attention of the authorities was drawn to the different provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regula tion and Development) Act, 1957 (here inafter will be referred to as the Act ). Thereafter, the petitioner received a let ter from the office of District Magistrate fixing 4-9-2002 for hearing the matter and on the said date the representative of the petitioner appeared and matter was heard and the same was fixed for orders. Thereafter, through letter dated 1-11-2002, the petitioner was intimated that the objections raised by him through letters dated 20-8-2002 and 2-9-2002 were rejected and demand was made to deposit an amount of Rs. 7,13,835/- to wards royalty and Rs. 1,000/- as penalty within a week failing which a threat was given for recovery of the same as arrears of Land Revenue. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the District Magistrate concerned has overlooked the definition of Mining Operations and has also over looked the fact that the petitioner was not involved in the mining operations and hence the letter dated 1-11-2002 has been challenged on the ground of il legality and arbitrariness and hence it has been alleged that the same is not binding upon the petitioner and as such is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) WE have learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.