Bombay High Court
Karnataka Emta Coal Mines ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 25 February, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
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
