Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Birla Cement Works vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 May, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:24921]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6217/2024
Birla Cement Works, (A Unit of Birla Corporation Limited),
Chanderia, Chittorgarh (Raj.) through Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Sunil Kumar Gadiya S/o Shri Dhanraj Gadiya, aged about 53
years, R/o Madhavnagar, Chanderia, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 302 005
2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Rajasthan, Directorate of Mines, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur (Raj.) 313 001
3. The Indian Bureau of Mines though the Regional
Controller, Makhupura Industrial Area, , Ajmer (Raj.) 305
002
4. The Superintending Mining Engineer II (Major),
Directorate of Mines and Geology, Khanij Bhawan,
Udaipur (Raj.) 313 001
5. The Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology,
Khanij Bhawan, Sector-4, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh
(Raj.)
6. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira
Parayavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi 110 003
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit &
Mr. Hardik Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG with
Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary Badiyasar, R-6.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order REPORTABLE (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:48 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (2 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] 30/05/2024
1. The petitioner Birla Cement Works is unit of Birla Corporation Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, has preferred the instant writ petition essentially challenging the proceeded initiated by the respondents levying penalty for raising production in excess of the prescribed limit under the Environment Clearance (EC) granted to it. The petitioner has also challenged the demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) issued by the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh (respondent No.5) imposing penalty of Rs.2,77,05,522/- upon the petitioner for excess production beyond by the prescribed limit under the EC done by it and the order impugned dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) passed by the revisional authority dismissing revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was issued a Mining Lease No.1081983 for mineral Limestone (Cement Grade) near village Bherda, Jai, Surjana and Nagri, Tehsil and District Chittorgarh. The petitioner submitted its online annual return for F.Y. 2018-19 as mandatorily required under Rule 45 (5) (b) (vii) of the Mineral Concession and Development Rules, 2017 ('Rules of 2017') and forwarded the hard copy of the annual return to Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Ajmer on 19.06.2019 (Annex.1). In the annual return, the petitioner shown the total quantity of Run of Mines (ROM) as 28,57,780 MT, which after deduction of rejected generation of mine was mentioned as 27,94,980 MT.
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:48 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (3 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]
3. The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), respondent No.3 herein, issued a notice to the petitioner on 19.11.2019 (Annex.2) mentioning therein that during inspection of petitioner's mine on 18.10.2019 and 19.10.2019 violation of provisions of the Rules of 2017 were detected, more particularly violation of Rule 62 of the Rules of 2017. In the notice it was asserted that violation of Rule 62 is a punishment offence and non-compliance whereof would attract suspension of mining operations under Rule 11 (2) and launching of prosecution. The petitioner was thus granted 45 days' time to rectify the violations mentioned under the notice dated 19.11.2019 (Annex.2).
4. The petitioner in response to the notice dated 19.11.2019 (Annex.2) submitted its reply on 10.12.2019 (Annex.3) alleging therein that quantity of 28,57,780 MT shown under Item No.4.2
(b) (I) of Part-V in the Return of 2018-19 included both, limestone and mineral rejects. The petitioner asserted that during the year 2018-19 the production of limestone was 27,94,980 MT and clarified that dispatch mentioned under Part-IV of the return was limestone production and not ROM (Run of Mine).
5. After considering the stand taken by the petitioner in its reply dated 10.12.2019 (Annex.3), the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 09.01.2020 (Annex.4) accepting compliance of Points No.1,2 and 3 of the Rule 11 (1) and Rule 31 (4), however, it disagreed qua reply to Point No.4 of Rule 11 (1). In the notice, it was inter-alia, observed that the petitioner failed to submit revised annual return for the year 2018-19 and thus there was violation of Rule 11 (1) and Rule 45 (5) of the Rules, which in turn was punishable under Rule 62 resulting in (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:48 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (4 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] suspension of mining operation under Rule 11 (2) and prosecution. Thus, by way of issuing notice dated 09.01.2020 the petitioner was called upon to submit justification within thirty days as to why proceedings may not be initiated against it.
6. In response to the notice dated 09.01.2020 (Annex.4), the petitioner submitted return return for the year 2018-19 on 28.01.2020 (Annex.5). The petitioner in its reply submitted that the total quantity of ROM ore production as 28,57,780 MT and pleaded that quantity of mineral rejected generated for limestone was mentioned as 62800 MT under Item No.4.2 (B) (ii) (a) and the details of production was mentioned under Part VI. Petitioner submitted the details of production and dispatch of cement grade limestone as 27,94,980 MT. The petitioner asserted that in the earlier return, production of ROM ore at mine head was shown as 27,94,980 MT inadvertently and revised the same as 28,57,780 MT, however, production of limestone/dispatch was shown as 27,94,980 MT. The petitioner submitted its reply to the notice dated 09.01.2020 after submitting the revised return. The petitioner in the reply dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.6) clarified its stand for violation stated in the show cause notice. The petitioner stated that limit for production under the EC is for limestone is 28,24,000 MT and the petitioner has produced 27,94,980 MT in the year 2018-19, which according to petitioner was within the limit prescribed under the EC. It was further emphasized that quantity of total ROM production raised from mineralized zone as 28,57,780 MT while submitting that the crusher rejected 62800 MT and only 27,94,980 MT was dispatched as limestone. The petitioner thus clarified its stand that the EC for the year 2018-19 (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:48 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (5 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] was issued with the limited prescribed for production of limestone and not for run of mine and thus the petitioner has not raised the production in excess to the prescribed limit. According to petitioner, the respondent No.3 has not considered the submissions made by the petitioner and vide its letter dated 04.05.2020 (Annex.7) addressed to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology requested it to impose penalty for excess production.
7. Thereafter, the Superintending Mining Engineer-II (Major), respondent No.4 wrote a communication dated 10.07.2020 (Annex.8) along with which it forwarded the letter dated 04.05.2020 to respondent No.5, Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh with a direction to submit comments after enquiry. The Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh thereafter in response to communication dated 10.07.2020 wrote its communication dated 01.02.2022 (Annex.9) to the SME-II asserting therein that the petitioner has raised 28,50,288 MT as total mineral production (ROM) for Jai Block against the annual limit of 28,00,000 MT prescribed under the EC, which was 50,288 MT, which was in excess to the prescribed limit under the EC. The Mining Engineer thus recommended to impose penalty on excess production (50,288 MT).
8. The Superintending Mining Engineer-II (Major) thereafter vide its communication dated 18.02.2022 (Annex.10) informed the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh that IBM has only examined the mineral production in excess to EC limit for the year 2018-19 and has not examined for rest of years and thereby directed to make (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:48 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (6 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] enquiry of production from the year 1994 onwards and submit year-wise report.
9. The ME, Chittorgarh thereafter vide its response letter dated 07.03.2022 (Annex.11) apprised the SME the details of year-wise production for the year 1994-95 to 2020-21. In the reply, the ME, Chittorgarh asserted that the petitioner has produced Rom measuring 1,05,618 MT in excess to the quantity permissible under the EC for the period 2004-05 to 2018-19. The SME-II (Major) vide its letter dated 29.04.2022 (Annex.12) directed the ME, Chittorgarh to calculate the price of mineral and update. The ME, Chittorgarh thereafter vide its letter dated 18.08.2022 (Annex.13) submitted the applicable IBM rates along with penalty amount for the excess production to the respondent No.2 and quantified the penalty amount of Rs.2,77,05,522/-. Thereafter, the SME-II (Major) directed the ME, Chittorgarh to recover the penalty from the petitioner vide its letter dated 29.08.2022 (Annex.14).
10. The ME, Chittorgarh thereafter issued a demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount of Rs.2,77,05,522/- within a period of sixty days, failing which the security deposit would be forfeited and mine lease would also be revoked.
11. According to petitioner, the entire exercise resulting in imposition of penalty upon the petitioner is on the pretext that the petitioner had raised Run of Mine production in excess to the limit prescribed under the EC. The petitioner has referred the EC/s applicable for the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2018-19 and has annexed Annex.16 dated 29.07.2004 and qua the year 2018-19, the copy of EC dated 17.09.2007 is Annex.17. While relying on the (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:48 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (7 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] EC(c) being issued in favour of petitioner, it has been asserted that the limit prescribed for annual production for the said period was for production of limestone only and not for Run of Mine and, thus the respondents have misconstrued the Run of Mine as the limit prescribed for production and thus erred in levying penalty upon the petitioner vide impugned notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15). The petitioner has asserted that the limit on the annual production is imposed for limestone and not for Run of Mine under the EC applicable for the year 2018.
12. The petitioner being aggrieved by impugned demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) initially preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.1881/2023, however, after filing reply to the writ petition, wherein the respondents raised objection with regard to maintainability of the petition in view of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of revision before the Mines Tribunal, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2023 while granting liberty to petitioner to avail the remedy of revision. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition (Annex.26) before the revisional authority and a reply to revision petition was also filed by the respondent Department and rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the petitioner.
13. The Revisional Authority i.e. Mines Tribunal thereafter finally heard arguments of the parties and considering the pleadings vide its order dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) proceeded to dismiss the revision filed by the petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved of the impugned demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) and the (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (8 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] order impugned dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.3), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as before issuing impugned demand dated 26.11.2022 (Annex.15), the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing and straightway the demand has been imposed for the alleged excess production beyond the prescribed limit under the EC issued in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have erred in wrongly interpreting the statutory provisions, inasmuch as it was not a case of excess excavation attracting imposition of penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in total the petitioner is having EC for production to the extent of 28,24,000 MT for the mineral limestone, however, the respondents have erred in wrongly considering the ROM as production of limestone, which also includes crusher rejects as per the scheme of the mining plan. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 'production of limestone' is to be calculated after deducting the crusher rejects from ROM and the production dispatch of limestone is within EC limit, if the same is calculated after reducing the reject from ROM. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the respondents have wrongly included crusher rejects for the purpose of calculation of production of mineral.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon Annex.21, which is the production certificate, submits that the total production was within the prescribed limited under the EC issued in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (9 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] further submits that the part of Run of Mines less Minerals rejects and over burden removed from the lease area for the purpose of dispatch is limestone and the said analogy is required to be adopted for construing the limit prescribed for production. While drawing attention of the Court towards EC(s) that have been granted to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that environmental clearance provides annual production capacity of 2.8 Million Tone of limestone and not for ROM production. Counsel for the petitioner also referred EC granted by the MoEF in favour of other cement company, namely, Wonder Cement, more particularly para 9 thereof, which was for ROM production.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned demand raised is arbitrary and unreasonable and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the same is discriminatory as in the case of Wonder Cement, the yardstick adopted for calculation of production of limestone is different and qua the petitioner, the method of calculation is entirely different for imposition of penalty. He further submits that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the language of EC issued in favour of petitioner and in favour of Wonder Cement. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in BGR Energy System v. Assistant Commissioner, S.B. Sales Tax Revision/Reference No.217/2020 dated on 21.12.2023.
17. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have failed to consider the production certificate issued by them in favour of petitioner and the language implied in (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (10 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] the EC and other relevant documents that were produced by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing as the respondent State has not given any notice to the petitioner and thus without adhering to the principles of natural justice, the respondents have passed the impugned demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15).
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgments passed in Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. : (2008) 16 SCC 276, Sahara India v. Commissioner of Income Tax : (2008) 14 SCC 15 and Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. : (2023) 8 SCC 240.
19. On the other hand, the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5, authorities Mining Department have filed reply to writ petition alleging therein that earlier the petitioner submitted defective return while showing the quantity of the mineral dispatched at the same quantity of mineral produced, whereas at Item No.4.2 (B)
(ii) (a) of the return, mineral rejects generated with grades (Tones) 62800 ton has been mentioned and its grade has been mentioned as <60%, which is limestone excavated from the mining lease and thus non-inclusion of the limestone in the production was not admissible. While adverting to the communication dated 04.05.2020 of IBM, the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh examined the matter and found that qua Jai Block, EC dated 17.09.2007 was issued for annual production of 28,00,000 MT of mineral limestone and the petitioner had produced 28,50,288 MT excess mineral in violation of the statutory Rules, (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (11 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] and therefore, the demand has rightly been raised against the petitioner. Learned AAG also submits that so far as Bherda Block is concerned, EC dated 25.09.2007 was issued for annual production of 24,000 tons mineral, however, and 7492 tons of mineral was produced and thus no penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.
20. The respondents have further stated that during the year 2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2018-19, the petitioner produced mineral limestone in excess of the prescribed limit under the EC and thus the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the mining lease agreement and the statutory provisions. The respondents while relying upon Section 3 (fa) of the MMDR Act submits that word 'production' has been defined as winning or raising of mineral within the leased area for the purpose of processing or dispatch and the petitioner has excavated mineral limestone for processing and dispatch, which includes crusher reject. In the limestone processing, limestone crushing screening etc. are included and after crushing screening, usable limestone is process for cement manufacturing and crusher screening rejects are stocked for further future use. It is further asserted that the petitioner has proceeded to excavate 57780 MT mineral limestone in excess to the limit prescribed under the EC issued in its favour, therefore, for 57780 MT mineral being excavated in excess to the prescribed limit under the EC, the petitioner has rightly been held liable to be penalized.
21. The respondents have further averred that as per approved mining plan, overburden from total excavation of mineral is separate and remaining material is sent to crusher, whereas mine bolder sizing is reduced, which rather does not create any waste (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (12 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] but only size is reduced and the -12 mm size mine bolder is being stored by the leaseholder for future use. Thus, essentially the reject is also limestone and produced from the mining lease, which is usable.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner itself has accepted that it has done production in excess of the prescribed limit under the EC and the petitioner is essentially trying to justify the admitted excess production being done by it beyond the prescribed limit under the EC. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon decision in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors. : (2019) 11 SCC 674.
23. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, have perused the material available on record and have perused the judgments cited at bar by counsel for the parties.
24. This Court finds that the respondents issued notice to the petitioner on 19.11.2019 alleging therein that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Rules 11 (1), 31 (4) and 45 (7) of the Rules of 2017, as the petitioner has excavated mineral in excess i.e. beyond the limit prescribed under the EC issued by the competent authority in its favour along with other allegations. It is seen that the petitioner filed reply to the said notice on 09.01.2020 (Annex.4) and thereafter another notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner's reply was found satisfactory in respect of all the allegations levelled, except for the allegation that the petitioner has excavated mineral in question in excess. The petitioner had again filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, however, the petitioner was unable to give a satisfactory reply in respect to excess excavation of the mineral limestone. It (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (13 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] is important to note that the petitioner has placed on record reply dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.6), which was in response to letters dated 19.11.2019 and 08.01.2020, wherein the petitioner has itself admitted that its ROM production has been raised 28,57,780 MT as reported under Item 4.2 (B) (I) of Part-V in the annual return submitted for the year 2018-19.
25. Upon perusal of said reply dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.6), though the petitioner has agreed that its ROM production has been raised, but in the subsequent paragraphs, the petitioner has tried to justify the said excess production. The petitioner has tried to make out a case that the respondents have wrongly construed the definition of 'production' as laid down under Section (3 fa) of the Rules of 2017 and the definition of 'Run of Mine' as laid down under the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (Rules of 2016).
26. The definition of 'production' under Section 3 (fa) of MMDR Act, 1957 and 'Run of Mine' under Rule 2 (1) (f) of the Rules of 2016 reads as under:
"3 (fa). 'production' or any derivative of the word 'production' means the winning or raising of mineral within the leased area for the purpose of processing or dispatch.
2 (1) (f). 'run of mine' means the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state obtained after blasting, digging from the mineralised zone of a lease area."
27. The definition of 'mineral rejects' as laid down under Rule 3 (1) (s) of the Rules of 2017 is also reproduced as under:
"3 (1) (s). 'mineral rejects' include all the excavated materials that do not constitute useful material, which may be rejected either on the basis of grade or size."(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (14 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]
28. This Court also considered the contention of petitioner that as per the definition of 'mineral rejects', the excavated material, which do not constitute useful material, has to be considered as 'mineral rejects' and the respondents have wrongly considered ROM as production of limestone, whereas the same ought to have been treated as mineral rejects/crusher reject. It is seen that the respondent No.6 issued EC dated 29.07.2004 in favour of petitioner for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 for production of limestone and the quantity is prescribed as 2.4 MTPA. For the year 2018-19, the MoEFCC issued EC dated 17.09.2007 in favour of petitioner specifically mentioning therein that the project proponent shall not exceed annual limestone production from the mine beyond 2.8 million tonnes. From the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has excavated the mineral limestone in excess to the limit prescribed under the EC.
29. This Court finds that petitioner's contention that before issuing the impugned demand notice/order dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as from the documents placed on record, it is clear that the petitioner has been served upon umpteen number of notices by the respondent No.3 IBM, however, the petitioner has failed to establish before the respondents that it has not done production of mineral limestone in excess. A perusal of the documents viz. notice dated 19.11.2019 (Annex.2) and letter dated 04.05.2020 (Annex.7) issued by respondent No.3 IBM, it is revealed that respondent No.3. IBM had categorically directed the respondent State to (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (15 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] proceed against the petitioner as the petitioner was unable to satisfy that it has not done production in excess and also to recover penalty accordingly. As number of notices and opportunity of hearing has already been afforded to the petitioner by respondent No.3, thus no more opportunity of hearing was required, as at no point of time by filing reply before the respondent No.3, the petitioner was able to make out a case in its favour and further learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to demonstrate before the Court the relevant provision of law under which the respondent State was required to issue a notice to the petitioner.
30. It is seen that the respondent-Mining Department in the reply filed have placed reliance upon para 10 (a) of the order dated 23.05.2003 issued by respondent No.3 approving the mining plan and progressive mine closure plan while submitting that a bare perusal of para 10 (1) would reveal that the petitioner is using +12 mm size of limestone for production of cement and - 12 mm size of limestone separately in stock as crusher reject. They have further stated that in chemical examination of crusher reject, it is found that the reject is having 60% CaCo3 and in the bench scale study carried out by IBM, Ajmer, CDE Asia and Derrick Corporation, USA 70% recoverable mineral has been mentioned. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner has also proposed to install washing plant to up-grade the reject in the mining plan, the said 'mining rejects'/waste are utilized by the petitioner in cement manufacturing. The contention of the petitioner that the 'mineral rejects' is of no use for it, cannot be (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (16 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] countenanced and for the mineral limestone excavated in excess to the limit prescribed under the EC, the petitioner has rightly been held guilty and thus is liable to the pay the penalty.
31. This Court finds that the revisional authority in its order dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) has observed that the petitioner is relying upon definition of 'ROM' provided under Rule 2 (viia) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, whereas after publication of the notice dated 04.06.2016, the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 have come into force and the definition of 'ROM' has to be applied as per Rules of 2016. The definition of 'ROM' as laid down under the Rules of 1960 and under the Rules of 2016 reads as under:
Definition of 'ROM' under the Rules of 1960:
"the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state obtained after blasting, digging, cutting or scrapping from the mineralized zone of a lease area."
Definition of 'ROM' under the Rules of 2016:
"the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state obtained after blasting or digging, from the mineralized zone of a lease area."
32. This Court finds that a close scrutiny of the definition of 'ROM' as laid down under the Rules of 2016 very specifically includes the 'raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state, which has been obtained after blasting or digging, from the lease area and thus any material, which has been obtained after blasting or digging' and the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material, has to be construed under the definition of 'ROM' and not under the definition of 'mineral rejects'; and the petitioner is utilizing the mineral limestone, which is contended by it, as mineral rejects, for production of cement. The revisional authority (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24921] (17 of 17) [CW-6217/2024] after applying its mind and examining all the material placed before it, has held that 'mineral rejects' are also part of production along with limestone, which is used by the petitioner in cement manufacturing and, therefore, the petitioner's contention that the production of limestone is to be calculated after deducting the crushed rejects from ROM, is found to be contrary to the definitions of 'ROM' and 'Mineral Rejects' as laid down under the Rules of 2016 and the Rules of 2017 respectively.
33. This Court finds that petitioner's contention is absolutely misplaced and fallacious, as definition of 'mineral rejects' can be applied to the excavated material that do not constitute useful material. However, in the present case, the excavated material i.e. limestone duly excavated by the petitioner is being utilized by the petitioner for the purpose of cement manufacturing and thus it cannot be said to be not useful material for the petitioner. The respondents thus were justified in imposing penalty of Rs.2,77,05,522/- upon the petitioner for excess production beyond the prescribed limit under the EC done by it and the revisional authority has not committed no error in passing the order impugned dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30).
34. In view of above discussion, the demand notice demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) issued by the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh and the order impugned dated dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) passed by the revisional authority do not require any interference by this Court in the instant writ petition.
35. Accordingly, the writ petition as also stay petition are dismissed. No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 32-Devesh-DJ/-
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:40:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)