Satyendra Kumar Tomar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the demand notice dated 01.06.2022, recovery certificate dated 28.06.2022, and the recovery citation dated 09.09.2022, issued against the petitioner for the failure of the petitioner to deposit the licence fee in respect of the mining concession granted to the petitioner for mining of RBM / minor mineral. The petitioner was liable to pay Rs.6,07,53,495/- towards royalty for a period 15.05.2020 to 14.05.2021, and Rs.6,68,28,845/- for the period 15.05.2021 to 14.05.2022.

2) As per the notice issued to the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has extracted 34,981.37 tonnes of minor minerals, whereas the petitioner has deposited only Rs.1,47,51,000/-. The total liability in respect of the said two years comes to Rs.13,20,70,340/-, thereby leaving a balance of Rs.11,73,19,340/-.

3) The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not carry on the mining activity in terms of the mining lease due to the amendment carried out by the State, inter alia, in Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 2001, vide Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession)(Amendment) Rules, 2021, on 28.10.2021. The petitioner submits that by the said amendment the respondents started granting concession rights to Bhumidhars for concession of RBM from their land at rates of royalty which are about 1/7th of the rate at which the petitioner was granted the right to mine the minerals. Consequently, the petitioner has not been able to mine and sell the mineral in respect whereof the licence was granted.

4) Learned counsel submits that the petitioner challenged the said amendment in the Rules by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2909 of 2021. We may observe that we have heard that petition today, and allowed the same, thereby quashing the amendment carried out in Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the stand of the petitioners stands completely vindicated.

5) We have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner.

6) No doubt, the amendment to Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001, has been quashed by us, since we have found that by the said amendment the respondents started granting mining concession in respect of the RBM / minor mineral at royalty rates, which are a fraction of the rates at which the royalty is being collected through a transparent public auction. However, in our view, that by itself is no reason to assume that the petitioner was prevented from carrying out the mining activity. The petitioner has not surrendered the licence even after the amendment of the Rules of 2001. There is nothing to show that the mining activity was stopped by the petitioner, and the reasons therefor are also not clear, even if it were to be accepted that the petitioner stopped the mining activity. The dispute raised by the petitioner would require factual determination which we are not in a position to undertake in writ proceedings.

7) We, therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court or such other forum as may be available to the petitioner to ventilate his grievances.

Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2022) also stands disposed of.