IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16563 of 2004(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.KARUNAN, S/O. KELAN, SAJEEVAPURAM, ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KOZHIKODE. G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED AGREEMENT DT.4.12.91. P2: TRUE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT DT.1.7.1994. P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE SENT BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER DT.20.1.99. P4: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DT.2.1.03. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF R1 DT.6.4.2004. P6: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY IN RESPECT OF LEASE NO.I. P7: .DO. NO.II. P8: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.17.5.04. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.16563 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents. Admittedly petitioner took on lease mining rights for mining seashells from two sides in the sea shore. Mining right was granted on condition of payment of royalty or dead rent in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Licence fee is paid and there is no dispute on this. According to the petitioner, petitioner was paying royalty in accordance with the Schedule and therefore, demand of dead rent is not tenable. However, Government Pleader submitted that the provision in the Minor Mineral Concession Rules is to collect dead rent, if royalty is less than dead rent. In view of the provision contained in the said Rules based on which mining lease is granted, petitioner is liable to pay dead rent in excess of the royalty paid. There is no dispute with regard to the amount involved. I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that dead rent which is higher than royalty is not payable by him. However, since the matter is pending for long and the 12 year lease itself is over in 2003, petitioner is given facility to clear the liability with 50% accrued 2 interest provided balance amounts are paid in two instalments, first of which will be paid on or before 10th August and the balance on or before 10th September, 2009. If rate of interest is not prescribed, rate to be recovered from petitioner should be 12% p.a. and since 50% is waived by this court, petitioner need to pay only 6% p.a. for the whole period of default. However, if payment due under both agreements is not made as above, entire arrears can be recovered, that is, with full rate of interest or at 12% per annum.. W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms