DECCAN LIME STONE MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED DHONE KURNOOL Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was granted a Mining Lease for quarrying limestone, in an area of 46.00 acres in Madhavaram Reserve Forest, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. The royalty payable on it is fixed under Schedule-II of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), at Rs.25.00 per Metric Ton, since revised to Rs.32 - per Metric Ton, if the Silica content in it is more than 1.5% and Rs.50.00 per Metric Ton, if the Silica is less than 1.5%. It had quarried various quantities of limestone from time to time and paid royalty at the rate of Rs.25- or Rs.32.00 per Metric Ton, as the case may be. On being issued the necessary transport permits, it supplied the mineral to its customers.

(2.) Petitioner was issued letter dated 11-7-1997 by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology-the first respondent, wherein it was stated that certain sample were taken from the quantities excavated and permitted to be transported between 7-12-1996 and 3-7-1997. It was further- stated that on an analysis of the said samples, it emerged that the Silica content in 15 samples representing about 16,000 Metric Tons, was less than 1.5%. By levying the corresponding differential amount of royalty, a sum of Rs.3,36,250.00 was demanded. Similar letters were issued on 23-7-1997 and 27-9-1997 in respect of some other quantities quarried and transported at subsequent points of time.

(3.) Petitioner challenges the demand made by the respondents. According to it, the respondents have no authority to reassess the royalty, once it was paid on a mineral. It is also contended that no procedure is prescribed under the Act or the A.P. Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), for taking the samples and analysing the same to enable the authorities of the Department to revise the royalty. Petitioner further contends that the first respondent did not issue any show- cause notice, before fixing the liability. It also disputes the extent of Silica content in the limestone as alleged by the respondents.