9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the materials used by the petitioners for brick manufacturing are considered minor minerals. 2. The authority of the Bihar State Government to impose royalty on minor minerals. 3. The authorization of the Assistant Mining Officer to assess and collect royalty. 4. The retrospective application of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. 5. The requirement for quarry permits for extracting brick-earth. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the materials used by the petitioners for brick manufacturing are considered minor minerals: The petitioners argued that the materials they used for brick manufacturing, such as sand, earth, and clay, were not minor minerals, and hence, the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, were not applicable to them. However, the court referred to the definition of minor minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which includes building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, and ordinary sand. The Central Government had notified brick-earth as a minor mineral on June 1, 1958. The court concluded that brick-earth is a mineral and its inclusion in the definition of minor minerals is not ultra vires the Constitution. 2. The authority of the Bihar State Government to impose royalty on minor minerals: The court examined whether the Bihar State Government had the authority to impose royalty on minor minerals. Article 265 of the Constitution states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law. The court referred to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, which delegates the power to the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of minor minerals. The court concluded that the imposition of royalty is within the powers given to the State Government under Section 15 of the Act. 3. The authorization of the Assistant Mining Officer to assess and collect royalty: The petitioners contended that the Assistant Mining Officer was not authorized to demand payment of royalty. The court noted that the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, define a competent officer, and Assistant Mining Officers were authorized by the State Government to perform the duties of the competent officer by a notification dated September 6, 1964. The court found that the impugned notices were issued after this authorization, and the Assistant Mining Officer was competent to issue the notices. 4. The retrospective application of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964: The petitioners were asked to pay royalty for the period from 1958 to 1964, but the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, came into effect from April 18, 1964. The court held that the rates of royalty specified in the 1964 Rules cannot have retrospective application. The court also noted that the petitioners did not take any mining lease under the rules, and the demand for royalty for the period before the rules came into force was without any authority of law. Therefore, the notices demanding royalty for the period from 1958 to 1964 were quashed. 5. The requirement for quarry permits for extracting brick-earth: The Block Development Officer issued notices asking the petitioners to take quarry permits for digging earth and taking sand for brick manufacturing. The court examined the relevant rules and concluded that a quarry permit can be required for extracting and removing any minor mineral from any specified land within the limits of the jurisdiction. The court found no justification to challenge the notices calling upon the petitioners to take quarry permits for extracting brick-earth from the lands. Conclusion: The court quashed the notices issued by the Assistant Mining Officer demanding royalty for the period from 1958 to 1964, as they were without any authority of law. However, the court upheld the notices calling upon the petitioners to take quarry permits for extracting brick-earth. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
