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

2. This group of seven appeals arises from the common judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on February 28, 2006 and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.  3. The core issue that calls for determination in these appeals is whether ‘ordinary earth? used for filling or levelling purposes in the construction of embankments, roads, railways, buildings has validly been declared to be a ‘minor mineral? by the Central Government vide notification dated February 3, 2000 issued under Section 3(e) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, ‘Act, 1957?).  4. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of these appeals. The brief narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 2088 of 2007 will suffice. The appellant therein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the construction of business towers, hotels and various other infrastructural development projects. According to them, an agreement was entered into between the Company and National Highway Authority of India for widening of Grand Trunk Road from 393 kilometre stone to 470 kilometre stone at Sikandara, Kanpur. For the purpose of filling and levelling of road, the company entered into agreement with the local land holders/agriculturists for purchase of ‘ordinary earth? and paid them accordingly. Various demand notices are said to have been issued to the appellant towards royalty for lifting ‘ordinary earth? necessitating them to approach the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the constitutional validity of notification dated February 3, 2000 issued by the Central Government. They also challenged the amendment brought in the First Schedule by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for short, ‘Rules, 1963?) fixing royalty for the use of ‘ordinary earth? at the rate Rs. 4/- per cubic metre.

Reasoning: 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