Chattisgarh High Court
N M D C Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 December, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 5794 of 2022
1. N M D C Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signatory Rajeev Lochan Bharti (AGM)
Biom, Bacheli Complex, District Dantewada C.G.
2. N M D C Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory Rajeev Lochan Bharti (AGM)
Biom, Kirandul Complex, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Forest, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada Forest Division District Dantewada
Chhattisgarh.
3. Union Of India, Through - The Secretary, Ministry Of Forest, New Delhi.
---- Respondents
24.12.2022 Mr. Abhishekh Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Mr.
Ujjwal Choubey, Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kashif Shaqeel, Dy. A. G. for the State.
Heard on I. A. No. 02, application for grant of interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated
23.11.2022 (AnnexureP/1) whereby, the respondents have retrospectively levied
transit fee of Rs. 1,44,62,65, 632,00 consolidated for both the units (Bacheli and
Kirandul) of the petitioner under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Transit (Forest
Produce) Rules 2001 and consequential notification dated [email protected] Rs. 7,00
per tonne on the transportation of iron ore from 14.06.2002 to 31.10.2012.
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the
provisions of Chhattisgarh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules 2001 the said rules
have been framed by the State of Chhattisgarh, which were published on
25.08.2021. These rules were assailed before this Court on earlier occasion also
and various States have framed these types of Rules and these rules have been
challenged before various High Courts and thereafter the matters were traveled
upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had finally
decided the issue in case of State of Uttarakhand and Others Vs. Kumaon
Stone Crusher reported in (2018) 14 SCC 537 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has decided the issue that the rules are not beyond the capacity of the
State legislation and the competency of the State Governments to frame such
rules have been held to be valid.
Learned Sr. Counsel would further submit that on earlier occasion the
matter was challenged before the Hon'ble Division Bench wherein Hon'ble Bench
granted interim protection to the petitioner Company in WPC 635/2013 on
05.07.2013 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has passed the following order:
"In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we grant two weeks time
to file counter affidavit/reply, however looking to the contents of the recent notice
dated 01.07.2013 and further considering that the entire mining operation has
been directed to be stopped which may lead to loss of public exchequer, we direct
that in the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in
relation to the said demands notices and the petitioners shall not be stopped from
carrying mining operations or transportation on account of the said demands till
the next date of hearing. However, the petitioners shall be under obligation to pay
current transit fee/storage fee on the prescribed rates in according with the rules."
and has directed the petitioner to pay transit fee from 2019 onward and since
then the petitioners are paying the same without any objection. So the dispute is
confined from 14.06.2002 to 31.10.2012."
The learned counsel for the State would submit that vide impugned order
the dues have been assessed by the Forest Department to the extent of Rs.
79,52,23,541/- and Rs. 65,10,42,091/- as reflected from the notices issued to the
petitioners on 23.11.2022 respectively.
The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that since
no transit passes have been issued to them therefore, no recovery for the period,
when transit passes have not been issued, should be made by the respondents.
He would draw attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court particularly paragraph 215.6 has held as under:
"215.6 Rule 3 of the 1978 Rules is not independent of Rule 5 of the 1978
Rules. Transit fee is payable on all kinds of transit passes and cannot be
confined only to transit passes as referred to in Rule 4(1)(b) only."
When this Court put a specific query to the learned counsel for the State that
what are the material to calculate such amount and whether the transit pass from
the year 2002 to 2012 have been issued to the petitioner/Company or not, he
would pray for time to seek instructions.
Considering the submission that details of transit fee payable by the
petitioners have also not been brought to their notice, also considering the fact that
for the subsequent period from 2013 the petitioners are paying the transit fee
regularly, as an interim measure it is directed the respondents shall be restrained
from interfering in the transportation of ore from the mines of the petitioner till the
next date of hearing .
Since the dispute pertains to the period from 2002 to 2012. it is also directed
that the State shall provide details to the petitioner for assessing the liability of the
petitioners towards the demand raised by the respondent as per notice (Annexure
P/1 & P/2) issued by the respondent authorities.
It is made clear that the payment of current period transit fee is a condition
precedent for transportation of ore of these mines of the petitioners.
Post this matter on 12th of January, 2023.
In view of above, I.A. Nos. 3 & 4 stand disposed of.
Certified copy, today.
Sd/-d/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Vacation Judge
amita
