TATA STEEL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, by way of this writ petition, seek to quash the letters dtd. 20/1/2004, 6/4/2004, 29/8/2008, 4/10/2008 and 15/4/2011 as at Annexures-1, 3, 7, 8 and 12 respectively issued by the Deputy Director Mines, Joda, Keonjhar, directing the Petitioner-Company to pay a sum of Rs.6,93,99,308.00 towards loss of royalty and Rs.7,07,44,492.00 as interest thereon due to beneficiations of high grade lump iron ore for the period from October, 1994 to September, 2000, and to issue direction to the Opposite Parties to grant "Mining Dues Clearance Certificate" in favour of the Petitioner- Company without any further delay.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Petitioner No.1, being a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a manufacturer of iron and steel in the country, has set up an integrated steel plant at Jamshedpur. Petitioner No.2 is the Chief Resident Executive of Petitioner No.1 Company and is authorized to file the writ petition by virtue of the Board Resolution dtd. 7/4/2008 of Petitioner No.1-Company. As such, it is an old Mining Company in the country and owns mineral rights of various minerals like iron ore, chromite, limestone, dolomite, manganese, coal etc.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioners emphatically contended that the letters issued on 20/1/2004, 6/4/2004, 29/8/2008, 4/10/2008 and 15/4/2011 by the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda, directing the Petitioner-Company to pay royalty and interest thereon due to beneficiation of high grade lump iron ore for the period from October, 1994 to September, 2000 are without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court and also violates Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the demand of royalty levied by the Deputy Director Mines, Joda-Opposite Party No.3, is based on the A.G. Audit Report, which is based on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) and, as such, the same was distinguished by the apex Court in the case of National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (supra). Thereby, the demand so raised cannot have any justification and the same has to be quashed. It is further contended that on the basis of the ratio decided in National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (supra), Opposite Party No.2-Director of Mines, on 30/8/2004 and 31/3/2009, has recommended to the State Government to drop the proceeding against the Petitioner-Company. In spite of such communication made, no action has been taken and arbitrarily demands have been raised, which cannot sustain in the eye of law and has to be quashed. Even though the Petitioner-Company applied for grant of "mining dues clearance certificate" by filing applications dtd. 18/8/2010 and 14/2/2011 for the purpose of renewal of its lease, trade license and removal of ore from mines, the same are still pending before the Opposite Party No.2-Director of Mines, on the ground of non-payment of royalty and interest thereon, even though the Petitioner-Company is not liable to pay the same. It is further contended that determination of royalty by the A.G. Audit has not been arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, the same cannot be enforced and compelled by the Opposite Parties to pay the same, as the same is contrary to the judgment of the apex Court. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the demand made by the authority vide letters dtd. 20/1/2004, 6/4/2004, 29/8/2008, 4/10/2008 and 15/4/2011 under Annexures-1, 4, 8, 9 and 12, respectively. To substantiate his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of State of Orissa v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (1998) 6 SCC 476; and National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of M.P.,(2004) 6 SCC 281.