RAMESH CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises for determination in this case is whether royalty is imposable after coming into force of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 by invoking Rule 33 thereof in respect of an existing lease granted under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1983.

(2.) The Tahsildar, Dhankanal opposite party No. 2 granted two long term leases (Padmanava Stone Quarries Nos. 1 and 2) to the petitioner vide long term lease cases Nos 6 and 7 of 1990-91 under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1983 Rules'). Pursuant to such grant the petitioner started operating the quarries in question although no formal lease deeds have been executed. When the matter stood thus, the 1983 Rules came to be repealed and replaced by Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1990 Rules) by specifying rates of royalty payable in respect of minor minerals in Schedule 1, following the enforcement of the 1990 Rules with effect from 19-8-1990, the petitioner was served with two notices dated 11-1-1991 as per Annexures 7 and 8 calling upon him to deposit the differential royalty which were calculated as per the 1990 Rules in respect of both the quarries. These two notices are the subject matter of challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The point involved in this case has recently been decided by this Court in Debasis Singh Samant v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 Orissa 11. It has been held therein that by virtue of Rule 33 of the 1990 Rules which provides that anything done, any action taken or orders passed under the repealed rules shall be deemed to have been done under the 1990 Rules, lease granted under the repealed rules shall be deemed to be a lease under the 1990 Rules and royalty could be levied on minor minerals extracted from the leased area in respect of an existing lease at the rates stipulated in Schedule I of the 1990 Rules.