Hindustan Zinc Limited vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 161 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18921/2022

Hindustan Zinc Limited, Registered Office At Yashad Bhawan, Swaroop Sagar Road, Udaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory And Associate General Manager (Legal) And Head Legal, Kumar Ankit S/o Shri Manvendra Kumar, Aged About 36 Years.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Directorate Of Mines, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Division Ii, Rajsamand (Raj.).

4. The Rajsamand District Mineral Foundation Trust, Through Its Member Secretary.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. U.N.Tiwari.
                                Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit.
                                Mr. Parikshit Singh Chouhan.
                                Mr. Milap Chopra.
                                Mr. Dilip Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG.
                                Mr. Akshita Singhvi.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

05/01/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the demand notices/orders dated 17/11/2022 (Annex.4),

whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to make payment of

amount of interest of Rs. 16,14,19,960/- + Rs.8,59,41,365/-.

(2 of 4) [CW-18921/2022]

It is inter alia indicated in the said notice that notice for

deposit of Rs.19,56,60,557/- + Rs.10,41,71,9567/- was issued on

25/1/2022 for deposit of amount of DMFT for the period

17/9/2015 to 31/5/2016, which amount has been deposited on

5/2/2021. It was claimed that in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court dated 13/10/2017, on the amount of DMFT the

petitioner was required to deposit interest @ 15% from the date

the amount was due.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the

demand of interest is de hors the provisions of Section 9B of the

Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 ('the

Act, 1957') and/or Rule 49 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and

Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 ('the

Rules, 2016') inasmuch as the interest under Rule 49 of the Rules,

2016 is payable on rent, royalty or fee or other sum due to the

State Government, whereas, under Section 9B of the Act, 1957

the amount of DMFT is payable to a Trust, a non-profit body i.e.

the District Mineral Foundation and not to the State Government.

Further submissions have been made that the directions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the State as given in

Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India &

Anr. : (2017) 16 SCC 186, has no application to the present case,

wherein, the demand for the first time has been raised on

25/1/2021 and the petitioner was required to deposit the amount

of DMFT within 15 days, which amount has been deposited within

the said period of 15 days and as such, even in terms of the

judgment in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries

(supra), the amount is not payable.

(3 of 4) [CW-18921/2022]

Learned AAG appearing for the State with reference to the

provisions of Rule 49 of the Rules, 2016 and judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral

Industries (supra) made submissions that the interest is payable

as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically laid down that the

amount should have been deposited by 31/12/2017 and as the

amount has not been deposited by the said time, interest was

required to be paid by the petitioner from the due date and,

therefore, the plea raised has no basis.

It was also submitted that merely because the petitioner had

an interim order in its favour against the coercive action qua the

liability arising under the DMFT in the writ petition filed by it,

which interim order came to be vacated by the Division Bench, the

period during the interim order remained in currency, the

petitioner can avoid payment of interest.

Further submissions were made that the provisions of Rule

49 of the Rules, 2016 would be applicable to the demand of DMFT

and, therefore, the petitioner cannot get away from the liability to

make payment of amount of interest.

Based on the plea raised by the petitioner and the stand

taken by the State, the issues require consideration as to whether

Rule 49 of the Rules, 2016 would have application to the demand

under Section 9B of the Act, 1957 and whether irrespective of

provision of the Rules, under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme

Court, interest is payble.

Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also.

As the State is duly represented and preliminary reply has

already been filed, additional reply, if any, may be filed by the

next date.

(4 of 4) [CW-18921/2022]

List the petition on 7/2/2023.

In the meanwhile and till the next date, the recovery of

amount of interest vide Annex.4 from the petitioner Company

shall remand stayed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 71-baweja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)