Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 11th February, 2026

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.-

1. The petitioner has challenged the several demand notices issued by the authorities claiming the additional charges in respect of Sarandamal Stone Quarry solely on the ground that the foundation of the levy of the additional charges taking shelter under Rule 39 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, "the OMMC Rules") is per se illegal.

"No.RDM-MMS-MEET-0009-2019-30986/R&DM, Dated 14.10.2019 From Sri B.B. Das Additional Secretary to Government To All Collectors Sub: Fixation of additional charge on unit quantity of minor minerals in case of quarry lease granted to Government Organisations and for quarry permits under the provisions of OMMC Rules, 2016.
Madam/Sir, In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to say that Rule 39 of the OMMC Rules, 2016 provides for reservation of any area for lease for quarrying operation by government organisations subject to such terms and conditions as may be decided by Government. Sub-rule-5 of the said Rule speaks that the lessee, to whom a lease has been granted under this rule, shall pay to the Government all amounts payable by a lessee under these rules and such additional charges as may be decided by the Government from time to time.
Necessary steps may be taken to carry out the above decision and all concerned may be informed accordingly."

10. Apropos the said direction issued, another letter was caused on 24th September, 2020 by the Additional District Magistrate to Tahasildar, Lakhanpur for fixation of the additional charges on the rate of royalty assessed during the time of settlement of the minor mineral sources beyond the scope of the OMMC Rules on the basis of a calculation provided in the above quoted letter. The aforementioned two letters are the substratum of the demand raised upon the petitioner which is sought to be challenged on the premise, as narrated hereinabove. The above quoted letter manifestly indicates that the fixation of the additional charge on the unit quantity of the minor minerals is restricted to a quarry lease granted to the Government Organisation, more particularly under Rule 39 of the OMMC Rules. Rule 39 of the OMMC Rules runs thus:-

11. The bare look of the aforesaid Rules contained in separate Chapter-VI postulates the incorporation of the special provision for the Government Organisation. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 39 of the OMMC Rules, which has been pressed in action by the authority, provides for a payment of all amounts payable by the lessee under the OMMC Rules and the additional charges, as may be decided by the Government from time to time. It can be reasonably gathered from the language used in sub-rule (5) of Rule 39 of the OMMC Rules that the said provision is applicable only where lease has been granted under the said Rule and it can be logically inferred that the said Rule has its restricted applicability to the mines given to Government Organisation. Once the provision is restricted to a particular class of persons, its expansion to other class of the persons is impliedly ruled out and, therefore, the authorities cannot expand the horizon of the said statutory provisions to the other lessees who are not Government Organisations. So far as the imposition of the additional charges are concerned, the liability towards the payment is envisaged under Rule 32 of the OMMC Rules and it is not in dispute that the petitioner paid the said additional charges to the Government. There cannot be any escape from the discharge of the liability imposed by the statutory provisions, but equally it is true that the imposition of any liability de hors the provision of law, is also impermissible.