9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification dated 29th January, 1970, issued by the Union of India amending item No. 8 in the Second Schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 2. Whether the Central Government violated the proviso to Section 9(3) of the Act by enhancing the rate of royalty on limestone within a period of four years. 3. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions filed by unauthorized persons. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notification Dated 29th January, 1970: The petitioner companies challenged the notification dated 29th January, 1970, which amended item No. 8 in the Second Schedule of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The amendment abolished the two grades of limestone (superior and inferior) and set a uniform royalty rate of Rs. 1.25 per tonne. The petitioners argued that the limestone they quarried was of inferior grade with less than 45% calcium oxide, and the notification effectively increased the royalty on this inferior grade from Rs. 0.75 to Rs. 1.25 per tonne. They contended that this enhancement was not permissible before the expiry of four years from the last notification issued on 29th June, 1968. 2. Violation of the Proviso to Section 9(3) of the Act: Section 9(3) of the Act empowers the Central Government to amend the Second Schedule to enhance or reduce the rate of royalty. However, the proviso to this section stipulates that the Central Government cannot enhance the rate of royalty more than once during any period of four years. The petitioners argued that the 1970 notification violated this proviso as it was issued within four years of the 1968 notification. The respondents countered that the petitioners had been paying royalty at the rate of Rs. 0.75 per tonne since 1962, and the 1968 notification only enhanced the rate for superior grade limestone. Therefore, they argued that the 1970 notification did not violate the proviso. The court found that the 1968 notification had indeed enhanced the royalty rate for superior grade limestone, thus exercising the Central Government's power under Section 9(3). Consequently, any further enhancement within four years was precluded by the proviso. The court held that the 1970 notification, which abolished the two grades and increased the rate for inferior grade limestone, violated the proviso to Section 9(3). 3. Preliminary Objection Regarding Maintainability: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitions were filed by unauthorized persons, as they were not signed by the Secretary or the Director of the companies concerned. The court referred to Rule 1 of Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows any principal officer of a corporation who can depose to the facts of the case to sign and verify pleadings. The court found that the petitions were signed by principal officers who were fully conversant with the facts of the cases and were competent to swear affidavits. Therefore, the preliminary objection was rejected. Conclusion: The court allowed all three writ petitions and quashed the impugned notification dated 29th January, 1970. The court held that the notification violated the proviso to Section 9(3) of the Act by enhancing the rate of royalty on limestone within four years of the previous enhancement. The preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions was also rejected. No order as to costs was made.
|
