Case: M/S Som Datt Builders Ltd Vs. Union Of India

be covered by the expression ‘mineral? as noted in Black?s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition). 21. Common parlance test that because nobody speaks of ‘ordinary earth? as a ‘mineral? has not been accepted by this Court in Banarsi Dass Chadha. As a matter of fact, this Court in this regard specifically disagreed with the view of Calcutta High Court in Jagadamba Prasad Singh (supra). 22. In the context of Section 3(e), what we have discussed above, we hold, as it must be, that ‘ordinary earth? is comprehended within the meaning of the word ‘any other mineral?. We adopt the reasoning given by three-Judge Bench in Banarsi Dass Chadha that if the expression ‘minor mineral? as defined in Section 3(e) of the Act includes ‘ordinary clay? and ‘ordinary sand?, there is no reason why ‘ordinary earth? should not be comprehended within the meaning of the word ‘any other mineral?. 23. Having held that ‘ordinary earth? is comprehended within the meaning of the word ‘any other mineral? in Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957, the question that now arises is whether the exercise of power by the Central Government under Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957 in declaring the use of ‘ordinary earth? for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways, building as ‘minor mineral? is justified. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Central Government cannot include any matter based on mere use nor can it make purpose-based distinction. Once the ‘ordinary earth? is found to be comprehended within the meaning of the word ‘any other mineral? for the purposes of Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957, in our view, there is no impediment for the Central Government to include or exclude the same based on a particular use or purpose. User can be a valid reason for exclusion as well as inclusion in declaring mineral, ‘minor mineral? in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government under Section 3(e) of the Act and exercise of any such power based on use or purpose cannot be said to be arbitrary. We, accordingly, find no merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the declaration of the ‘ordinary earth? for the uses and purposes mentioned in the notification dated February 3, 2000 is ultra vires the power conferred upon the Central Government. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also argued that demand of royalty can be raised only against a lessee or mining permit-holder and the demand raised against the appellants, who are neither lessees nor mining permit holders, is violative of the Rules, 1963. 25. The High Court while dealing with the aforesaid contention held : ?Now coming to the question as to whether the amount of royalty can be recovered from the petitioners who are the contractors and suppliers of ordinary earth and other minor minerals, we are of the considered opinion that the royalty is payable on excavation of any minor minerals. The liability is primarily of the person holding the mining lease or a mining permit but if a person does not hold any mining lease or a mining permit, the liability does not cease. Any person dealing in a minor mineral is required to maintain and keep documents to show that the royalty has been paid and in order to ensure that due royalty on minor minerals has been paid within the State of U.P., the State Government by the tree Government Orders have provided for producing copies of declaration in Form MM 11 and treasury challan evidencing deposit of royalty. It cannot be said that any undue restrictions have been placed upon the right to carry on trade or business or it is without the authority of law.? 26. Rules 1963 have been framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its power conferred under Section 15 of the Act, 1957. These Rules have adopted the definition of ‘minor mineral? as provided in Clause (e) of Section 3 of the Act, 1957. The Rules make provision for grant of mining lease; payment of royalty/dead rent; conditions of mining lease and permit; contraventions, offences and penalties for unauthorized mining including consequences of non-payment of royalty, rent or other dues; powers of the District Officers and the Officers of the Directorate of Geology and Mining for the purpose of assessment of royalty; collection of royalty or dead rent through contractor; appeal against order passed under these Rules by the District Officer and remedy by way of revision to the State Government. 27. Vide notification dated March 20, 2001, First Schedule appended to the Rules, 1963 was amended and rate of royalty for ‘ordinary clay? ‘ordinary earth? was fixed at Rs. 4/- per cubic metre. 28. Admittedly demand notices came to be issued to the appellants by the Office of the District Officer bringing to their notice that they have extracted ‘ordinary earth? covered by the definition of ‘minor mineral? without any permission or permit and that they have also not paid royalty. The appellants were, thus, called upon to make payment of royalty. However, neither the material placed before us nor from the judgment of the High Court, it transpires that the appellants responded to the said notices and raised the objection that demand of royalty cannot be raised against them as they were not lessees or mining permit holders. In any case, if they raised such objection, they did not await decision of the authorities in this regard. Rules 1963 provide complete machinery for assessment and recovery of royalty and consequences of non-payment of royalty. These Rules also provide remedy to an aggrieved person against order passed under the Rules by the District Officer demanding payment of royalty. The appellants, having failed to pursue remedy provided under the Rules, 1963 as regards recovery of royalty from them, we are afraid, the view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]However, neither the material placed before us nor from the judgment of the High Court, it transpires that the appellants responded to the said notices and raised the objection that demand of royalty cannot be raised against them as they were not lessees or mining permit holders. In any case, if they raised such objection, they did not await decision of the authorities in this regard. Rules 1963 provide complete machinery for assessment and recovery of royalty and consequences of non-payment of royalty. These Rules also provide remedy to an aggrieved person against order passed under the Rules by the District Officer demanding payment of royalty. The appellants, having failed to pursue remedy provided under the Rules, 1963 as regards recovery of royalty from them, we are afraid, the view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution