SALITHO ORES PVT LTD Vs. CAPTAIN OF PORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the Petitioners in these Petitions are challenging the vires of Notification dated 13/08/2009, amended Rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and are challenging the instruction dated 10/12/2009 which had been issued by Respondents on the ground that it is contrary to the proviso to section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "MMDR Act").

(2.) Petitioners in these Petitions have been granted mining lease of various plots of lands mentioned in respective Petitions and pursuant to the said lease which has been granted, they have been carrying on mining activities and are selling ore of various grades. The royalty payable by Petitioners in respect of the said mining lease is covered by provisions of section 9 read with Second Schedule to the MMDR Act The contention of the Petitioners in these Petitions is that the said royalty which was payable prior to the amendment of Rule 64D was at a fixed rate. The grievance of the Petitioners is that on 13/08/2009, Notification was issued amending the Second Schedule to the MMDR Act to prescribe royalty at 10% of sale price on ad valorem basis in Entry No.22 of the Second Schedule. Further grievance of the Petitioners is that on 10/12/2009, the Central Government amended old Rule 64D of the Mineral Concession Rules and the said amended Rule 64D provided that the Indian Bureau of Mines ("IBM") shall publish sale price for computation of royalty and that the royalty shall be computed as per formula "Royalty = sale price of mineral (grade-wise and State-wise published by IBM X Rate of royalty (in percentage) X total quantity of mineral grade produced/dispatched.

(3.) Petitioners have also challenged the directions issued by Respondent No.1 dated 10/12/2009 to the Controller General, IBM with regard to method to be followed by IBM to determine the sale price to be published by IBM for each month in respect of each State. IBM was to take into account weighted average price per metric tonne of Pit Mouth Value ("PMV") of the mineral ore as reported by the top 10 noncaptive producers, or actual number of non-captive producers, whichever is less in monthly returns under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MCDR Rules"). Some of the Petitioners have also challenged the other orders passed by the Goa Port Trust.