IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6512 of 2009 ------------ In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------------- Prem Prakash Narayan, son of late Dr. Yogendra Prasad, D.D. Tulsi Road, (near Mungraura Masjid), P.S. East Colony, P.O. Jamalpur, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Munger. 5. Assistant Mining Officer, Munger ... .... Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, (Spl.PP)Mines. ------------- P R E S E N T HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH S.K.Katriar,J. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the demand notice dated 23.8.2002 (Annexure-5), issued under the signature of respondent no.5 (Assistant Mining Officer, Munger), whereby demand of Rs. 7, 52, 649.49P has been raised against the petitioner for having extracted boulder, gravel, and shingles in the district of Munger. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the 2 disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The State Government had executed a lease agreement in favour of one Ram Pratap Sah for extraction of boulder, gravel, and shingles in the district of Munger. With the consent of the State Government, Ram Pratap Sah had transferred his right and interest in the lease agreement in favour of the present petitioner by agreement (transfer deed) dated 8.1.1996 (Annexure-1). 2.1. At the time of execution of the lease deed in favour of Ram Pratap Sah, the lessee was liable to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.25/- per cubic meter which rate remained in force up-to 31.3.2001. By notification dated 23.3.2001 (Annexure-2), the rates were enhanced from Rs.25/- to Rs.50/- per cubic meter. Another entry of the notification stated that boulder, gravel, and shingles used for making chips was liable to pay royalty of Rs.100/- per cubic meter. The notification, inter alia, clarified as follows: “Note:- In respect of minerals mentioned in Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, the identified areas of the two categories of the said minerals, shall be notified separately, as per rules. This order will come into force from Ist April, 2001. This was followed by notification dated 8.4.2002 (Annexure-4), of the State Government, 3 whereby it was clarified that such boulder, gravel and shingles capable of being converted into chips, shall be liable to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic meter. The notification further clarified that mining of the items in question in the areas specified therein including the district of Munger, shall pay royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic meter on boulder, gravel and shingles capable of being converted into chips. 2.2. The items so mined by the petitioner was seized by the officials of the Forest Department of the Bihar Government from the railway yard on 16.4.2002 and 19.4. 2002, which remained in its possession till this Court intervened by order dated 26.3.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 205 of 2009, whereby the seized goods were directed to be released within a period of four weeks. The seizure was followed by the impugned demand notice dated 23.8.2002. Hence this writ petition. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us from a perusal of the notification dated 23.3.2001, that royalty at the rate of Rs.50/- was liable to be paid on boulder, gravel, and shingles. The second item of entry of the notification stated that royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- on boulder, gravel, and shingles 4 should be payable if the same are used for making chips. The notification, inter alia, clarified that the areas with respect to item nos. 1 and 2 of the notification shall be notified separately. The same has been notified by notification dated 8.4.2002, wherein it is stipulated that boulder, gravel and shingles capable of being converted into chips shall be liable to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic meter. There is evidently a difference in the language of the second entry in the two notifications. One says used for chips, and the second one says capable of being converted into chips. The petitioner’s lease deed is admittedly with respect to an area falling within the district of Munger. Reading the two notifications harmoniously, it appears to us that the petitioner became liable to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic meter on boulder, gravel, and shingles capable of being converted into chips, which may or may not have been actually converted into chips, in the district of Munger with effect from 23.3.2001. This, however, does not conclude matters. 4. There is yet another vital aspect of the matter which needs consideration. The functionaries of the Forest Department of the Bihar Government had seized the boulder, gravel, and shingles extracted by the 5 petitioner in the district of Munger on the strength of his lease deed from the railway yard at Munger on 16.4.2002 and 19.4.2002. The petitioner challenged the validity of the seizure and ultimately succeeded. By order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure-3), passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.205 of 2009, the respondents have been directed to release the seized goods within a period of four weeks. It appears to us that the petitioner was deprived of possession of his goods illegally and till the date of release the goods were in possession of the authorities. We consider it to be an interference with the source of livelihood of the petitioner and is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, we are of the view that the petitioner shall be liable to pay royalty at the rate in force on extraction of the goods in question as on the date of the release of the same. In that view of the matter, the impugned order becomes unsustainable in law. 5. In the result, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 23.8.2002 (Annexure-5), raising demand of Rs. 7, 52, 649.49p against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities shall be free to issue a fresh demand notice in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. The petitioner shall 6 not be liable to pay interest, if at all, for the period the goods were in the possession of the authorities. Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J. I agree. High Court Patna, Dated 16th September,2011 Vinay/ N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)