WP/27700/2005 of Tiffins Barytes, Asbestos and Paints limited., Vs The Director of Mines and Geology, on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.27700 of 2005

The petitioner is a Company. It obtained a mining lease for Barytes (a major mineral)in Vemula Mandal of Kadapa District in accordance with the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation Act) 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960(for short ‘the Rules’). It appears, the second respondent herein issued a demandnotice dated 21.07.2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,02,755/-towards royalty and penalty purportedly based on a report of the Regional Vigilance& Enforcement Officer, Tirupathi. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writpetition, being W.P.No.6673 of 2005. The same was disposed of by this Court givingliberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Central Government. Thepetitioner filed a revision petition, and the same is pending on admissibility. In themeanwhile, the petitioner made a representation on 26.08.2005 to the firstrespondent requesting to issue dispatch permits without insisting upon the paymentof penalty of Rs.2.17 crores demanded by the second respondent. By impugnedcommunication dated 24.11.2005, the first respondent informed the petitioner that in the absence of any stay orders granted by the Central Government, the request ofthe petitioner cannot be considered until the amount of Rs.2.17 crores is paid.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajasekhar, vehemently contends thatthe demand raised by the second respondent is without jurisdiction and illegal.Secondly, he would urge that if the demand raised by the second respondent is notpaid by the lessee, the same cannot be a ground to deny dispatch permits, and thatthere is no power vested in the first respondent to insist upon the payment of theroyalty and penalty thereon. The learned Counsel, however, does not dispute thatthe revision petition filed by the petitioner-Company is still pending before theCentral Government, and that the petitioner did not obtain any orders of stay.

The petitioner has not placed before this Court a copy of the notice bearingNo.1597/VG/2001, dated 21.07.2001, to know the nature of the levy, which wasdemanded to be paid by it. Going by the language in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit,it is reasonable to infer that the petitioner failed to pay the Mineral revenue to theState, and therefore, based on the report of the Vigilance Cell, penalty was imposedand a demand notice was issued. Be that as it is, as the petitioner is dealing with amajor mineral, the petitioner rightly filed a revision petition before the CentralGovernment, presumably, under Rule 54 of the Rules. Though the secondrespondent issued a demand notice on 21.07.2001, the petitioner filed a revisionpetition only in 2005, but did not obtain any orders of stay. There is not even anaverment in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition that the petitioner filed suchapplication for stay. Therefore, the first respondent was right in refusing the requestof the petitioner for dispatch of permits in the absence of any orders staying thecollection of royalty and penalty thereon. Even now, it is open to the petitioner toobtain appropriate orders from the Government of India in this regard. If the firstrespondent denies dispatch of permits on the ground that the petitioner-Companyfailed to pay the mineral revenue, there cannot be any infirmity in the same. Thediscretion of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot beexercised in favour of a person who committed default in payment of mineralrevenue.