Allahabad High Court
M/S Sri Ram Enterprises vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17050 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Sri Ram Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The controversy raised in this petition is with regard to the rate at which contribution is to be made towards DMF (District Mineral Foundation).
Sub-section (5) of section 9-B of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which has been inserted by Act No. 10 of 2015, with effect from 12.01.2015, provides that the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting license-cum-mining lease, granted on or after the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 2015, shall, in addition to the royalty, pay to the District Mineral Foundation of the district in which the mining operations are carried on, an amount which is equivalent to such percentage of the royalty paid in terms of the Second Schedule, not exceeding one-third of such royalty, as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Sub-section (4) of section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 empowers the State Government, by notification, to make rules, inter-alia, in respect of the amount to be paid to the District Mineral Foundation by concession holders of minor minerals under Section 15-A. Exercising its power conferred by sub-section (5) of section 9-B, 15 and 15-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Governor was pleased to notify the U.P. District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017. Sub-rule (2) of rule 10 thereof provides that in case of minor minerals, the holder of every mineral concession/permitting shall in addition to the royalty, pay to the trust of the district in which the mining operations are carried on, an amount which is equivalent to 10 percent of the royalty or as may be prescribed by the State Government from time to time.
The case of the petitioner is that the amount charged towards DMF could be @ 10 % of the statutory royalty and not 10 % of the bid amount for the lease as the State Government is seeking to recover.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a writ petition, namely, Writ C No. 54052 of 2017 (Chandra Bhan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 others) was filed challenging such demand but the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2017 against which a Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 35161 of 2017 filed before the Apex Court has been entertained and an interim order has been passed allowing the appellant to deposit the statutory royalty and furnish bank guarantee of the balance amount.
It is the case of the petitioner that following the interim order of the Apex Court, several petitions have been entertained and interim orders have been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to interim order dated 19.11.2020 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Writ C No. 18721 of 2020, which is extracted below:-
"By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the recovery/demand notice dated 19.8.2020. The recovery is sought on account of non-payment of the installment of royalty and towards District Mineral Foundation (D.M.F.) apart from TCS. The controversy in regard to demand towards DMF is pending for consideration before the Apex Court wherein an interim order has been passed but it is against the demand of DMF.
Counsel for the petitioner has agreed to pay the amount of royalty, as has become due and demanded through the recovery notice so as to the amount of TCS. The prayer is to pass interim order in regard to amount of DMF.
Taking into consideration the order passed by the Apex Court in similar matter, we direct the petitioner to immediately deposit the amount of royalty and amount of TCS and so far as the amount of DMF is concerned, he is directed to furnish a bank guaranty within a month and in that case the amount towards DMF would not be recovered till the next date of hearing.
Let this petition be listed along with Writ-C No.16647 of 2020 enabling respondent no. 2 to file counter affidavit in the matter. "
The learned Standing Counsel has also invited our attention to interim order dated 18.01.2021 passed in Writ C No. 26151 of 2020, which is extracted below:-
"It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that issue raised in the present writ petition is also subject matter of Writ Petition No. 36519 of 2018 (Jitendra Varshney vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), Writ Petition No. 1671 of 2019 (M/S Indus Mines and Minerals) Writ Petition No. 36293 of 2018 (Jaspal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 others), Writ C No. 3493 of 2019 and Writ C No. 17865 of 2020.
In view whereof, let this matter be set out for analogous hearing along with aforesaid writ petitions.
In order to maintain parity, it is ordered that subject to petitioner depositing statutory royalty and furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of respondent no. 2 - District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat of the balance amount of royalty claimed by the respondent, the operation of demand notice dated 12.11.2020 shall remain stayed.
Meanwhile, respondent - State would be at liberty to file counter affidavit. "
In view of the above, we direct that this petition shall be connected with Writ C Nos. 18721 of 2020 and Writ C No. 26151 of 2020 and be listed as and when the connected petitions are to be listed. In the meantime, the State-respondents will be at liberty to file counter-affidavit. To maintain parity, it is ordered that subject to petitioner depositing statutory royalty, TCS and furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate/District Officer, Sonebhadra of the balance amount claimed by the respondents, the effect and operation of the demand notice dated 13.07.2021 shall remained stayed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021 sfa/