Karnataka Emta Coal Mines ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ...

     WP1282.15 (J).odt                                1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                      
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                             
                              WRIT PETITION NO.1282 OF 2015

     Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Limited,
     4th Floor, Narang Towers, Palm Road,




                                                            
     Civil Lines, Nagpur-400 001.                              ..             Petitioner

                                    .. Versus ..

     1]     State of Maharashtra,




                                                  
            Through the Collector, Chandrapur.

     2]
                             
            The Collector, Chandrapur.

     3]     The Director of Geology & Mining,
            Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.
                            
     4]     District Mining Officer,
            Chandrapur, Collector Office,
            Chandrapur.
      


     5]     The Tahsildar,
   



            Bhadrawati, Distt. Chandrapur.                     ..             Respondents

                            ..........
     Shri S.C. Mehadia, counsel for the petitioner,





     Ms. Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
                            ..........

                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK  AND
                                             A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 7.3.2015 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:23 ::: WP1282.15 (J).odt 2 Rs.5,32,85,591/- towards interest for the delayed payment of royalty or else the petitioner's property would be confiscated and the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had paid royalty during every quarter, in advance, from the year 2008 till the first notice was received by the petitioner that there was a delay in the payment of royalty, as found by the Auditor on 27.11.2013. In view of the show cause notice dated 27.11.2013, according to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a reply and stated therein that the royalty was paid in advance during every quarter and there was no delay whatsoever in payment of the same. According to the petitioner, royalty was paid in excess and the said fact was brought to the notice of the respondents vide the reply filed by the petitioner. It is further stated that it was also stated in the reply that in view of the grace period of 60 days provided under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, no interest was payable for the royalty paid during the grace period of 60 days. It is stated that these facts are not stated by the respondents and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without passing an order on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a huge amount of interest, failing which the property of the petitioner, would be confiscated as per the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, was passed. Inter alia, it is stated that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is violative of principles of natural justice.

Ms. Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, has relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2-Authority. It is stated that the petitioner had delayed in making the payment of royalty. It is, however, fairly stated that there is nothing in the reply to show that either the petitioner was heard and an order rejecting the case of the petitioner, as presented through the reply to the show cause notice, appears to have been passed.

It is clear from the reading of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4 that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner and the respondents had not passed an order imposing interest by recording a finding that there was actual delay in payment of royalty, during the specified period. In the absence of order imposing the liability of payment of interest on the petitioner, the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a specified amount towards interest.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notices dated 22.1.2015 and 7.3.2015 are quashed and set aside.

The respondents are free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                                                JUDGE
     Gulande




    ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2016                                ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:23 :::