AMAR SINGH MODI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER "brick-earth" has validly been declared to be a minor mineral by virtue of the General Government Notification No. G. S. R. 436, dated the 1st of June, 1958, issue under Section 3 (e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and development) Act, 1957, is the important and slightly intricate question which primarily calls for determination in these two connected Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1840 and 2004 of 1970. Identical questions of law and fact arise in these petitions and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment shall govern both of them.

(2.) THE broad outline of the facts is not in dispute. It would suffice to make a reference to the facts in Civil Writ No. 2004 of 1970 only to appreciate the primarily legal contentions which have been raised. The petitioner-firm of Messrs. Amar Singh Modi Lal carries on the business of the manufacture of bricks and is a licensee under the Punjab Control of Brick Supply Order 1956. It installed a brick kiln on the land which it took on lease from the Gram Panchayat of village Chhapra tehsil and District Ambala for production of bricks at the rate of 15000 bricks per year. It is averred that the petitioner-firm is neither a mining lessee not has entered into any agreement with the Government in that regard nor does it hold any short term permit under the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The District Industries Officer Ambala, however, issued a demand notice vide Annexure 'a' demanding Rs. 4152. 86 P. as royalty from the petitioner-firm on pain of issuing warrants of arrest and attachment in default of payment. This demand notice is impugned by way of writ petition and has been challenged as null and void and the constitutionality of the various provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (hereinafter called as the Act) and the validity of the notifications and the rules framed thereunder have been assailed on a variety of grounds which would be noticed in detail hereafter.

(3.) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondent State of Haryana, three preliminary objections have been first taken. It is stated that the petition involves intricate questions of fact and is thus not a fit one for the exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Further that the rights for the extraction of brick earth and clay in the disputed land belong to and vest in the Government and therefore the petitioner had no locus standi or a right to bring the writ petition. It is further averred that it has been found as a fact that the petitioner-firm has been charging royalty by issuing cash memos to the consumers for the sale of bricks and has kept the amount of royalty with itself which it was not authorised to do as royalty belongs to the Government.