M/S Raavi Stone Crusher vs U.T. Of J&K And Others

Rajnesh Oswal, J

With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the present petition was taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Writ of certiorari quashing the order impugned No. 1354/MCC/DGM/R. River/V/7591-94 dated 30.12.2022 issued by respondent No. 3 herein.

(ii) Writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents No. 2 and 3 to issue a valid order/grant the permission to the petitioner, to crush raw material which has been legally procured by paying the royalty to the respondent No. 2 and 3.

(iii) Writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 3 to issue Form-A in favour of the petitioner herein so that the petitioner is able to operate the stone crusher in a legal manner and procure the raw material from the legal source.

(iv) Writ of prohibition directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere in the operation of the stone crusher under the garb of penalty order dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure-III) and 03.08.2019 (Annexure-IV) which have been stayed by the Hon’ble Court in WP(C) 2988/2019.

It is stated that the respondents had issued the order dated 02.08.2019, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,71,43,613.75/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy One Lacs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Seventy Five Paisa Only) on the ground that the petitioner had illegally stored/dumped huge quantity of minor minerals. The said order dated 02.08.2019 was impugned by the petitioner through the medium of writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2988/2019 and this Court vide order dated 21.08.2019 stayed the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner, subject to deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) in the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks and furnishing of bank guarantee of like amount within the aforesaid period. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for modification of the order dated 21.08.2019 and the Court vide order dated 20.09.2022, modified the order dated 21.08.2019 to the extent that the requirement of furnishing the bank guarantee of like amount was dispensed with. It is stated that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) as royalty with the respondents for procuring the raw material. At the time of sealing of the premises, the said raw material was lying in the premises. After the staying of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 and District Mineral Officer, Kathua did not permit the petitioner to crush the raw material, which the petitioner had lawfully procured from the office of District Mineral Officer, Kathua by paying the royalty. The petitioner as such, being aggrieved of the action of the respondents for not permitting the petitioner to crush the raw material legally procured by the petitioner, filed the writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2022, thereby permitting the petitioner to make representation to the respondent No. 2 and in the event of filing of such representation, the respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks. The petitioner pursuant to the direction of this court moved a representation on 29.11.2022 and the same was forwarded to the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.12.2022 directed the petitioner to submit a fresh undertaking from 1st Class Magistrate to the extent - “to pay the rest of the penalty amount in 36 equal instalments to the Department of Geology and Mining, J&K for de-sealing.”

The petitioner has impugned the said order on the ground that once the Court has modified the order dated 21.08.2019 and the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) with the Court, the respondents cannot direct the petitoner to submit an undertaking to deposit the balance amount of penalty in 36 equal instalments for the purpose of de-sealing the stone crusher.

Response stands filed by the respondents and it has been stated that the communication dated 30.12.2022 was issued to the petitioner in view of the communication dated 25.02.2021 issued by the Administrative Department (Mining), where under it has been directed to allow the operations of the units, those have been closed/sealed only due to outstanding royalty/penalty subject to valid consent to operate and payment of outstanding royalty and undertaking to pay the penalty amount in suitable monthly instalments not exceeding 36 months. The respondents have also narrated the other aspects of the case, which may not be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present controversy.

Mr. Parag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition and submitted that the order of the respondent No. 3 is contemptuous in nature as the respondent No. 3 has in fact flouted the orders passed by this Court.

Per contra, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG submitted that the order impugned has been righty passed, as such, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

Heard and perused the record.

From the record, it is evident that vide order dated 02.08.2019, the penalty for an amount of Rs. 2,71,43,613.75/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy One Lacs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Seventy Five Paisa Only) was imposed upon the petitioner for un-authorised storage of the minor minerals. This Court vide its order dated 21.08.2019 stayed the operation of the order dated 02.08.2019, subject to deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks and also subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee of like amount. The petitioner approached this Court for modification of the order dated 21.08.2019 and this Court vide its order dated 20.09.2022, modified the order dated 21.08.2019, thereby dispensing with the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only). The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) with the Nazir of this Court.

This court is of the considered view that the communication dated 30.12.2022, whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish an undertaking to deposit the balance amount of penalty in 36 equal instalments is not sustainable in the eyes of law, more particularly when the Court in WP(C) No. 2988/2019 has stayed the order dated 02.08.2019, whereby the penalty for amount of Rs. 2,71,43,613.75/- (Rupees Two Crore Seventy One Lac Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen and Seventy Five Paisa Only) was imposed upon the petitioner. Once this Court is seized of the matter and legality of the order dated 02.08.2019 is yet to be determined by the Court, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to furnish an undertaking for payment of rest of the amount of penalty in 36 equal instalments and that too, when the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by this court, by depositing the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) with this Court.

In view of the above, the order dated 30.12.2022 is quashed. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to operate the stone crusher in accordance with law, provided there is no other legal impediment.

Disposed of.