Thakur Singh Dasila vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, and Sri K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on

behalf of the State Government, and, with their consent, both the Writ Petition and the Special Appeal are disposed of.

The appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued to the 4th respondent on

30.04.2020; for a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 4 & 5 to grant permission to carry out mining activities, and for the sale of minerals, as

per the lease dated 06.03.2019; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the notice dated 30.04.2020 issued by

respondent nos. 4 & 5 as the appellant-writ petitioner is ready to pay any amount due in regard to the agreement dated 06.03.2019.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellant-writ petitioner is a contractor carrying on the business of mining of soap-stones. An

agreement was entered into and signed between the appellant-writ petitioner and the second-respondent and, consequent thereto, an extent of 4.321

hectares of land in Danu village of Gangolihat tehsil in Pithoragarh district was sanctioned by the second-respondent on 23.12.2011. A new lease-

agreement was entered into on 06.03.2019 between the appellant-writ petitioner, and the second respondent, with respect to another extent of 2.295

hectares of land in Danu and Auligaon villages of Ganai Gangoli tehsil in Pithoragarh district, and the appellant-writ petitioner claims to have deposited

a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as security amount.

While matters stood thus, the appellant-writ petitioner was called upon, by notice dated 30.04.2020, to deposit Rs. 10,42,000/-due from him in terms

of the previous lease-deed dated 23.12.2011. It is the appellant-writ petitioner’s case that payment of dues, if any in connection with the earlier

lease-agreement, cannot be made a condition for grant of a ‘No Objection Certificate’, to the appellant-writ petitioner, to carry on mining

activities in the new land leased in his favour. The petitioner claims that, in terms of the earlier agreement, he has deposited the entire amount in the

Treasury Office by Challan dated 13.12.2018, and it is only thereafter that a fresh lease-deed dated 06.03.2019 was entered into, and a notice was

issued on 30.04.2020, long after a lease-agreement was entered into on 06.03.2019, calling upon him to deposit Rs. 10,42,000/-allegedly due towards

interest on belated payment of the amounts due under the earlier agreement; and the impugned notice is illegal.

On the appellant-writ petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Single Judge opined that a ‘No Objection Certificate’

was not given to the appellant-writ petitioner as he had, admittedly, not paid the earlier dues of Rs. 10,42,000/- plus interest; the appellant-writ

petitioner appeared to be a consistent defaulter with respect to the State dues; and this amount of Rs. 10,42,000/-plus interest was liable to be paid by

the appellant-writ petitioner as far back in the month of February, 2019. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant-writ petitioner should

deposit 50 percent of the total amount, i.e. 10,42,000/- plus interest, with the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh within one week; for the remaining

amount, he should furnish a bank guarantee for a period of not less than one year; and, in such an event, the State Government may consider granting

him ‘No Objection Certificate’. The learned Single Judge further opined that the remaining 50 percent, for which a bank-guarantee was to be

given, would be determined on the next date of listing.

Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the appellant-writ petitioner has already paid the entire

royalty dues; the amount claimed by the impugned notice was only interest of Rs. 10,42,000/-; the learned Single Judge was under the erroneous

impression that the amount due of Rs. 10,42,000/- represented the principal amount due and had, therefore, directed payment of interest thereupon;

since the amount due is only towards interest for belated payment of royalty, the respondents are not entitled to levy interest on interest; and, instead

of keeping the writ petition pending on its file, this Court may consider recording the undertaking, made on behalf the appellant-writ petitioner, that the

entire amount due towards interest, of Rs. 10,42,000/-, would be paid within three weeks from today, and the State Government may consider granting

him a ‘No Objection Certificate’ on filing proof of payment of these dues.

Sri K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government, would fairly state that the impugned notice dated

30.04.2020 only refers to the amount due as Rs. 10,42,000/-, and makes no reference regarding any claim of interest thereupon. He would, however,

contend that, since the sum of Rs. 10,42,000/- was due and payable in February, 2019 itself, nearly one and half years ago, the learned Single Judge

was not in error in directing the appellant-writ petitioner to pay interest on the said amount.

As noted hereinabove, the notice, impugned in the writ petition, dated 30.04.2020, only demands a sum of Rs. 10,42,000/-. There is no reference

therein regarding any further claim, of interest thereupon, by the State Government. Even in Paragraph-3 of their counter-affidavit, the respondents

only claim that a sum of Rs. 10,42,000/- is due, and this represents the interest for the belated payment of royalty. It is the appellant herein who

invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. While the writ petition could have been dismissed, no order could have been passed therein in favour of the

respondents.

While the submission of Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, that the respondents were not entitled to levy interest

on interest cannot be said to be without merit, it is unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect since the order, impugned in the writ petition, makes no

mention of any such liability, on the part of the appellant-writ petitioner, to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 10,42,000.

Suffice it, in such circumstances, to record the undertaking, furnished on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner by Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned

counsel, that the appellant-writ petitioner would make payment of the amount, demanded in the impugned notice dated 30.04.2020, of Rs. 10,42,000/-

within three weeks from today. For a period of three weeks, the respondents shall not take any coercive action for recovery of the said amount.

Needless to state that in case the appellant-writ petitioner fails to make payment, within the time stipulated hereinabove, not only would it be open

to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the appellant-writ petitioner for violation of the undertaking, furnished by him to this Court, it would

also be open to them to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, for recovery of the said amount. It is also made clear that the appellant-writ

petitioner’s claim for grant of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ shall be examined by the respondents only on the appellant-writ petitioner filing

proof of payment of this sum of Rs. 10,42,000/-. The order under appeal is set aside, and both the Writ Petition and the Special Appeal are,

accordingly, disposed of. No costs.