BALAJI BUILDICON Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3/State. None appears for the respondent no.4, though served.

(2.) All these petitions question the denial of the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 to the petitioners - Industry, who are admittedly dealing with minor minerals. It is not in dispute that prior to the subsequent Government Circular dtd. 17/06/2011, the petitioners were being granted the incentive without any time- frame for applying for the same. However, on account of the Government Circular dtd. 17/06/2011, the benefit of the scheme is denied to them on the ground that there has been delay in making the application in view of clause 4.2 (3) of the Government Circular dtd. 17/06/2011. Clause 4.2 (3) of the said Circular contemplates that valid claim should be filed with the implementing agency within six months from the expiry of the financial year and if the claims are filed after six months, the amount of Royalty Refund will be 90% of the admissible amount. The claims filed after one year of the expiry of financial year will not be admissible (pg.88). It is on the basis of this Clause, the claims filed by the petitioner/s beyond the period of one year were rejected.

(3.) It is necessary to note that on an earlier occasion, on declining to accept the claims, a challenge was raised before this Court in Writ Petition No.137/2015 (M/s. Prerna Stone Crusher Vs. The Government of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and others) in which by judgment dtd. 18/03/2016 it was held that the petitioners were governed by Clause 5.5 of the Government Resolution dtd. 30/03/2007 and therefore, as the said Government Resolution did not make any difference for refund of royalty between major or minor minerals, nor prescribed any time period for applying the petitioners would be entitled to refund. It is consequent to this judgment the petitioner applied to be considered for refund, consequent to which, the claim submitted by the petitioners is rejected, which is subject matter of challenge in these petitions.