9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. 2. Validity of the Notification dated 1st August 1991 issued by the Central Government under Section 9(3) of the Act. 3. Whether the Notification is a piece of colourable exercise of power. 4. Whether the Notification is arbitrary and confiscatory in nature. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutionality of Section 9(3) of the Act The Court held that Section 9(3) of the Act is not ultra vires the Constitution. The Act was enacted under Entry 54 of the Union List, which deals with the regulation of mines and minerals development. The Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate on this matter, including the imposition of royalties. The Court rejected the argument that Section 9(3) suffers from excessive delegation of legislative power, stating that sufficient guidelines are provided for the Central Government to exercise its power. The Court affirmed that royalty is a tax and falls within the legislative competence of the Parliament under Entry 54 of the Union List and, alternatively, under Entry 97. Issue 2: Validity of the Notification dated 1st August 1991 The Court found that the Notification issued under Section 9(3) is valid and within the scope of the Act. The Notification was issued to revise the rates of royalty on coal, which had not been revised since 1981. The revision was necessary due to inflation and the fall in the value of money. The Court held that the enhancement of royalty rates has a direct nexus with the development of minerals and is not solely for compensating the States for the loss of revenue due to the invalidation of cesses by the Court. Issue 3: Whether the Notification is a piece of colourable exercise of power The Court rejected the contention that the Notification is a colourable exercise of power. The enhancement of royalty rates was justified and within the power conferred by Section 9(3). The Court noted that the motive behind the enhancement, which included compensating the States for the loss of revenue, was not irrelevant and did not vitiate the exercise of power. Issue 4: Whether the Notification is arbitrary and confiscatory in nature The Court dismissed the argument that the Notification is arbitrary and confiscatory. There was no evidence to show that the enhanced rates of royalty adversely affected the business of the lessees or that they were unable to pass on the burden to their customers. The Court found no material on record to support the claim that the enhanced rates were unreasonable or confiscatory. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Union of India, quashing the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petitions challenging the Notification. The appeal filed by M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. was dismissed. There was no order as to costs in all these matters.
|
