ACC LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of demand contained in letter dated 02.01.2015 issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa for a sum of Rs. 2,15,28,53,376/ - for the price of minerals dispatched between 30.09.2005 to 15.09.2014 from the Limestone mines covering an area of 157.82 acres (63.87 hectares) in Village -Kondwa, District -West Singhbhum, and seeking quashing of demand of Rs. 6,66,31,66,663/ - for the price of minerals dispatched between the period January, 1991 to September, 2014 from the Limestone mines, covering an area of 598.88 hectares located in Mouza -Rajanka, Village -Kondwa, District -West Singhbhum, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 claims that it was granted mining lease for 598.88 hectares at Village -Kondwa, Mouza -Rajanka on 04.06.1943, initially for a period of 30 years. Subsequently, the lease period was reduced by 2 years, 5 months and 3 days and it ended on 31.12.1970. The period of second lease ended on 31.12.1990 and the period of third lease would be between 01.01.1991 to 31.12.2010. The petitioner was also granted a mining lease for 63.87 hectares of Limestone mines at Village -Kondwa and lease -deed was executed on 13.09.1965 for a period of 20 years. The petitioner submitted its application for second renewal on 10.09.1989 and for third renewal of the 1st mining lease on 12.09.2009, which was initially granted on 04.06.1943 for an area of 598.88 hectares at Village -Kondwa. The petitioner also submitted an application for 2nd renewal for the lease pertaining to 63.87 hectares on 06.09.2004 still, the applications were not processed and renewal for the said two leases granted to the petitioner was not ordered by the State Government. And, in the meantime, vide order dated 06.09.2014 the petitioner was directed to stop mining in the aforesaid two mines. For the 1st mining lease (598.88 hectare) the Government of Jharkhand issued letter dated 15.12.2014 granting 2nd renewal for a period of 20 years starting from 01.01.1991 subject to payment of Rs. 80.02 crores and fulfillment of other conditions. A demand for payment of Rs. 2,15,28,53,376/ - for the price of mineral mined between 30.09.2005 and 15.09.2014 for the 2nd lease (63.87 hectare), was raised on 02.01.2015. The demand for the 1st lease was revised vide letter dated 21.03.2015 and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 6,66,31,66,663/ -. The petitioner vide letter dated 14.09.2015 objected to the aforesaid demands and sought renewal of the mining leases for the period ending on 31.03.2030. The petitioner, in the meantime, continued mining operation in the Limestone mines of 598.88 hectare however, no order for subsequent renewal of the mining lease was issued for the 2nd lease covering 63.87 hectare at Village -Kondwa. The further grievance of the petitioner is to unilateral revision of demand issued vide letters dated 21.03.2015 and 05.10.2015 and the basis for calculation of the price of minerals, that is, retail price of two retailers. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Sec. 8 -A(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining leases shall be deemed to have been granted and extended for the period ending 31.03.2030. The petitioner is not a new applicant rather, mining lease for 598.88 hectares at Village -Kondwa was granted as far back as on 04.06.1943. It is further submitted that the demand raised by the State Government vide letters dated 02.01.2015 and 05.10.2015 are patently erroneous. For calculating the amount for the minerals dispatched by the petitioner -Company, average sale price of two traders namely, Banwari Lal Nevatia and Maruti Mineral Industries has been taken into account whereas, the State Government should have calculated the amount as per Pit Mouth Value.

(3.) Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand submits that grant of renewal in terms of Sec. 8 -A(5) is subject to terms and conditions of the lease and one of the conditions imposed by the State Government is payment for the minerals dispatched which the petitioner must pay. It is submitted that the said intention of the legislature is further reflected in Sec. 10 -A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 in as much as, it is specifically provided that grant of mining lease shall be subject to fulfillment of conditions of the "previous approval" or of "letter of intent" within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand contends that the petitioner is, in fact, liable to make payment from 01.01.1991 for the 1st lease.