DEEPALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since a common challenge has been raised in all these writ petitions, they have been heard together in the light of the notice issued for final disposal.

(2.) Each petitioner is dealing in the business of mining of Limestone and Dolomite at various mines in District Yavatmal. Lease agreement has been entered into by each petitioner with the respondent no.3-The District Mining Officer, Yavatmal. The petitioners had not obtained environmental clearance certificate from the Environment Department of the State of Maharashtra during the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12. Hence, each petitioner was issued a communication dtd. 21/1/2021 by which they were informed that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs. Union of India and others, [(2017) 9 SCC 499], they were liable to pay penalty to the extent of 100% of the value of the minerals. Though notice demanding such amounts had been issued on 29/9/2018 to each petitioner, the requisite amount of penalty had not been deposited. Being aggrieved by the communication dtd. 21/1/2021 demanding such amounts, the petitioners have challenged the same in the present writ petitions. A chart indicating the basis for demand of value of the mines is reproduced hereunder: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_224_LAWS(BOM)9_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) Shri Akshay Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned communication dtd. 21/1/2021 issued by the District Mining Officer seeks to recover the value of minerals alongwith the amount of royalty though such royalty has already been paid by the petitioners. Each petitioner having already paid the amount of royalty towards excavation of minerals, its value was not liable to be added in the value of minerals that has been demanded by the impugned communication. Referring to the provisions of Sec. 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the Act of 1957), it was submitted that what could be recovered by the State Government under the said provision was only the value of the minerals that had been raised. Under Rule 45 (8) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 (for short, the Rules of 2017), the sale value as well as the Ex-mine price of a mineral has been indicated. Form G-1 under the Rules of 2017 was also relevant and from the aforesaid it was clear that while determining the Ex-mine price, the amount of royalty was not liable to be included in the same. The calculations that were supplied by the District Mining Officer did not indicate the break-up so as to demonstrate the fact that the amount of royalty had not been included in the Ex-mine price. Since the provisions of Sec. 21(5) of the Act of 1957 require payment of the price of minerals and as the Ex-mine price has to be determined without including the amount of royalty, it was clear that the demand made by the District Mining Officer from each petitioner was unsustainable. The District Mining Officer failed to indicate in clear terms that the amount of royalty had not been included in the amount of penalty that was being demanded from the petitioners. Referring to the affidavit filed on record by the District Mining Officer, it was submitted additional reasons so given therein to support the impugned demand were not liable to be taken into consideration and the impugned order would have to be considered in the light of what was stated therein. It was therefore submitted that the amount of royalty already paid by the petitioners was liable to be deducted while determining the amount of penalty.