Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Birla Cement Works vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 May, 2024

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

  [2024:RJ-JD:24921]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                         AT JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6217/2024
  Birla Cement Works, (A Unit of Birla Corporation Limited),
  Chanderia, Chittorgarh (Raj.) through Power of Attorney Holder
  Shri Sunil Kumar Gadiya S/o Shri Dhanraj Gadiya, aged about 53
  years, R/o Madhavnagar, Chanderia, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                           Versus
  1.       The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
           Department        of       Mines        and   Geology,      Government      of
           Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 302 005
  2.       The      Director,         Department         of    Mines     and    Geology,
           Government of Rajasthan, Directorate of Mines, Khanij
           Bhawan, Udaipur (Raj.) 313 001
  3.       The      Indian    Bureau          of    Mines      though    the     Regional
           Controller, Makhupura Industrial Area, , Ajmer (Raj.) 305
           002
  4.       The      Superintending             Mining         Engineer     II    (Major),
           Directorate       of       Mines    and       Geology,      Khanij   Bhawan,
           Udaipur (Raj.) 313 001
  5.       The Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology,
           Khanij Bhawan, Sector-4, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh
           (Raj.)
  6.       The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
           Environment,           Forest       and       Climate       Change,     Indira
           Parayavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi 110 003
                                                                       ----Respondents


  For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit &
                                       Mr. Hardik Vyas.
  For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG with
                                       Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi.
                                       Mr. Sunny Choudhary Badiyasar, R-6.



                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

REPORTABLE

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (2 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

30/05/2024

1. The petitioner Birla Cement Works is unit of Birla Corporation

Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013,

has preferred the instant writ petition essentially challenging the

proceeded initiated by the respondents levying penalty for raising

production in excess of the prescribed limit under the Environment

Clearance (EC) granted to it. The petitioner has also challenged

the demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) issued by the

Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh (respondent No.5) imposing penalty

of Rs.2,77,05,522/- upon the petitioner for excess production

beyond by the prescribed limit under the EC done by it and the

order impugned dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) passed by the

revisional authority dismissing revision petition filed by the

petitioner.

2. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ

petition are that the petitioner was issued a Mining Lease

No.1081983 for mineral Limestone (Cement Grade) near village

Bherda, Jai, Surjana and Nagri, Tehsil and District Chittorgarh. The

petitioner submitted its online annual return for F.Y. 2018-19 as

mandatorily required under Rule 45 (5) (b) (vii) of the Mineral

Concession and Development Rules, 2017 ('Rules of 2017') and

forwarded the hard copy of the annual return to Regional

Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Ajmer on 19.06.2019

(Annex.1). In the annual return, the petitioner shown the total

quantity of Run of Mines (ROM) as 28,57,780 MT, which after

deduction of rejected generation of mine was mentioned as

27,94,980 MT.

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (3 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

3. The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), respondent No.3 herein,

issued a notice to the petitioner on 19.11.2019 (Annex.2)

mentioning therein that during inspection of petitioner's mine on

18.10.2019 and 19.10.2019 violation of provisions of the Rules of

2017 were detected, more particularly violation of Rule 62 of the

Rules of 2017. In the notice it was asserted that violation of Rule

62 is a punishment offence and non-compliance whereof would

attract suspension of mining operations under Rule 11 (2) and

launching of prosecution. The petitioner was thus granted 45 days'

time to rectify the violations mentioned under the notice dated

19.11.2019 (Annex.2).

4. The petitioner in response to the notice dated 19.11.2019

(Annex.2) submitted its reply on 10.12.2019 (Annex.3) alleging

therein that quantity of 28,57,780 MT shown under Item No.4.2

(b) (I) of Part-V in the Return of 2018-19 included both, limestone

and mineral rejects. The petitioner asserted that during the year

2018-19 the production of limestone was 27,94,980 MT and

clarified that dispatch mentioned under Part-IV of the return was

limestone production and not ROM (Run of Mine).

5. After considering the stand taken by the petitioner in its

reply dated 10.12.2019 (Annex.3), the respondent No.3 issued a

show cause notice dated 09.01.2020 (Annex.4) accepting

compliance of Points No.1,2 and 3 of the Rule 11 (1) and Rule 31

(4), however, it disagreed qua reply to Point No.4 of Rule 11 (1).

In the notice, it was inter-alia, observed that the petitioner failed

to submit revised annual return for the year 2018-19 and thus

there was violation of Rule 11 (1) and Rule 45 (5) of the Rules,

which in turn was punishable under Rule 62 resulting in

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (4 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

suspension of mining operation under Rule 11 (2) and

prosecution. Thus, by way of issuing notice dated 09.01.2020 the

petitioner was called upon to submit justification within thirty days

as to why proceedings may not be initiated against it.

6. In response to the notice dated 09.01.2020 (Annex.4), the

petitioner submitted return return for the year 2018-19 on

28.01.2020 (Annex.5). The petitioner in its reply submitted that

the total quantity of ROM ore production as 28,57,780 MT and

pleaded that quantity of mineral rejected generated for limestone

was mentioned as 62800 MT under Item No.4.2 (B) (ii) (a) and

the details of production was mentioned under Part VI. Petitioner

submitted the details of production and dispatch of cement grade

limestone as 27,94,980 MT. The petitioner asserted that in the

earlier return, production of ROM ore at mine head was shown as

27,94,980 MT inadvertently and revised the same as 28,57,780

MT, however, production of limestone/dispatch was shown as

27,94,980 MT. The petitioner submitted its reply to the notice

dated 09.01.2020 after submitting the revised return. The

petitioner in the reply dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.6) clarified its

stand for violation stated in the show cause notice. The petitioner

stated that limit for production under the EC is for limestone is

28,24,000 MT and the petitioner has produced 27,94,980 MT in

the year 2018-19, which according to petitioner was within the

limit prescribed under the EC. It was further emphasized that

quantity of total ROM production raised from mineralized zone as

28,57,780 MT while submitting that the crusher rejected 62800

MT and only 27,94,980 MT was dispatched as limestone. The

petitioner thus clarified its stand that the EC for the year 2018-19

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (5 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

was issued with the limited prescribed for production of limestone

and not for run of mine and thus the petitioner has not raised the

production in excess to the prescribed limit. According to

petitioner, the respondent No.3 has not considered the

submissions made by the petitioner and vide its letter dated

04.05.2020 (Annex.7) addressed to the Director, Department of

Mines and Geology requested it to impose penalty for excess

production.

7. Thereafter, the Superintending Mining Engineer-II (Major),

respondent No.4 wrote a communication dated 10.07.2020

(Annex.8) along with which it forwarded the letter dated

04.05.2020 to respondent No.5, Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh with

a direction to submit comments after enquiry. The Mining

Engineer, Chittorgarh thereafter in response to communication

dated 10.07.2020 wrote its communication dated 01.02.2022

(Annex.9) to the SME-II asserting therein that the petitioner has

raised 28,50,288 MT as total mineral production (ROM) for Jai

Block against the annual limit of 28,00,000 MT prescribed under

the EC, which was 50,288 MT, which was in excess to the

prescribed limit under the EC. The Mining Engineer thus

recommended to impose penalty on excess production (50,288

MT).

8. The Superintending Mining Engineer-II (Major) thereafter

vide its communication dated 18.02.2022 (Annex.10) informed

the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh that IBM has only examined the

mineral production in excess to EC limit for the year 2018-19 and

has not examined for rest of years and thereby directed to make

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (6 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

enquiry of production from the year 1994 onwards and submit

year-wise report.

9. The ME, Chittorgarh thereafter vide its response letter dated

07.03.2022 (Annex.11) apprised the SME the details of year-wise

production for the year 1994-95 to 2020-21. In the reply, the ME,

Chittorgarh asserted that the petitioner has produced Rom

measuring 1,05,618 MT in excess to the quantity permissible

under the EC for the period 2004-05 to 2018-19. The SME-II

(Major) vide its letter dated 29.04.2022 (Annex.12) directed the

ME, Chittorgarh to calculate the price of mineral and update. The

ME, Chittorgarh thereafter vide its letter dated 18.08.2022

(Annex.13) submitted the applicable IBM rates along with penalty

amount for the excess production to the respondent No.2 and

quantified the penalty amount of Rs.2,77,05,522/-. Thereafter, the

SME-II (Major) directed the ME, Chittorgarh to recover the penalty

from the petitioner vide its letter dated 29.08.2022 (Annex.14).

10. The ME, Chittorgarh thereafter issued a demand notice dated

26.12.2022 (Annex.15) directing the petitioner to deposit the

penalty amount of Rs.2,77,05,522/- within a period of sixty days,

failing which the security deposit would be forfeited and mine

lease would also be revoked.

11. According to petitioner, the entire exercise resulting in

imposition of penalty upon the petitioner is on the pretext that the

petitioner had raised Run of Mine production in excess to the limit

prescribed under the EC. The petitioner has referred the EC/s

applicable for the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2018-19 and has

annexed Annex.16 dated 29.07.2004 and qua the year 2018-19,

the copy of EC dated 17.09.2007 is Annex.17. While relying on the

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (7 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

EC(c) being issued in favour of petitioner, it has been asserted

that the limit prescribed for annual production for the said period

was for production of limestone only and not for Run of Mine and,

thus the respondents have misconstrued the Run of Mine as the

limit prescribed for production and thus erred in levying penalty

upon the petitioner vide impugned notice dated 26.12.2022

(Annex.15). The petitioner has asserted that the limit on the

annual production is imposed for limestone and not for Run of

Mine under the EC applicable for the year 2018.

12. The petitioner being aggrieved by impugned demand notice

dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) initially preferred a writ petition

before this Court being SBCWP No.1881/2023, however, after

filing reply to the writ petition, wherein the respondents raised

objection with regard to maintainability of the petition in view of

availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of revision before

the Mines Tribunal, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court

vide order dated 04.04.2023 while granting liberty to petitioner to

avail the remedy of revision. The petitioner thereafter preferred a

revision petition (Annex.26) before the revisional authority and a

reply to revision petition was also filed by the respondent

Department and rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the

petitioner.

13. The Revisional Authority i.e. Mines Tribunal thereafter finally

heard arguments of the parties and considering the pleadings vide

its order dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) proceeded to dismiss the

revision filed by the petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved of the

impugned demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) and the

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (8 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

order impugned dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.3), the petitioner has

preferred this writ petition.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that there is violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as

before issuing impugned demand dated 26.11.2022 (Annex.15),

the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing and

straightway the demand has been imposed for the alleged excess

production beyond the prescribed limit under the EC issued in

favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the respondents have erred in wrongly interpreting

the statutory provisions, inasmuch as it was not a case of excess

excavation attracting imposition of penalty. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that in total the petitioner is having EC for

production to the extent of 28,24,000 MT for the mineral

limestone, however, the respondents have erred in wrongly

considering the ROM as production of limestone, which also

includes crusher rejects as per the scheme of the mining plan.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 'production of limestone'

is to be calculated after deducting the crusher rejects from ROM

and the production dispatch of limestone is within EC limit, if the

same is calculated after reducing the reject from ROM. Learned

counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the respondents have

wrongly included crusher rejects for the purpose of calculation of

production of mineral.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon

Annex.21, which is the production certificate, submits that the

total production was within the prescribed limited under the EC

issued in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (9 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

further submits that the part of Run of Mines less Minerals rejects

and over burden removed from the lease area for the purpose of

dispatch is limestone and the said analogy is required to be

adopted for construing the limit prescribed for production. While

drawing attention of the Court towards EC(s) that have been

granted to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that environmental clearance provides annual production

capacity of 2.8 Million Tone of limestone and not for ROM

production. Counsel for the petitioner also referred EC granted by

the MoEF in favour of other cement company, namely, Wonder

Cement, more particularly para 9 thereof, which was for ROM

production.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

impugned demand raised is arbitrary and unreasonable and is in

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the

same is discriminatory as in the case of Wonder Cement, the

yardstick adopted for calculation of production of limestone is

different and qua the petitioner, the method of calculation is

entirely different for imposition of penalty. He further submits that

the respondents have wrongly interpreted the language of EC

issued in favour of petitioner and in favour of Wonder Cement. In

support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon a decision of this Court in BGR Energy System v. Assistant

Commissioner, S.B. Sales Tax Revision/Reference No.217/2020

dated on 21.12.2023.

17. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

respondents have failed to consider the production certificate

issued by them in favour of petitioner and the language implied in

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (10 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

the EC and other relevant documents that were produced by the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing as the

respondent State has not given any notice to the petitioner and

thus without adhering to the principles of natural justice, the

respondents have passed the impugned demand notice dated

26.12.2022 (Annex.15).

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon

judgments passed in Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. v.

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. : (2008) 16 SCC 276,

Sahara India v. Commissioner of Income Tax : (2008) 14 SCC 15

and Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board & Anr. : (2023) 8 SCC 240.

19. On the other hand, the respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5,

authorities Mining Department have filed reply to writ petition

alleging therein that earlier the petitioner submitted defective

return while showing the quantity of the mineral dispatched at the

same quantity of mineral produced, whereas at Item No.4.2 (B)

(ii) (a) of the return, mineral rejects generated with grades

(Tones) 62800 ton has been mentioned and its grade has been

mentioned as <60%, which is limestone excavated from the

mining lease and thus non-inclusion of the limestone in the

production was not admissible. While adverting to the

communication dated 04.05.2020 of IBM, the Mining Engineer,

Chittorgarh examined the matter and found that qua Jai Block, EC

dated 17.09.2007 was issued for annual production of 28,00,000

MT of mineral limestone and the petitioner had produced

28,50,288 MT excess mineral in violation of the statutory Rules,

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (11 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

and therefore, the demand has rightly been raised against the

petitioner. Learned AAG also submits that so far as Bherda Block is

concerned, EC dated 25.09.2007 was issued for annual production

of 24,000 tons mineral, however, and 7492 tons of mineral was

produced and thus no penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.

20. The respondents have further stated that during the year

2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2018-19, the petitioner produced mineral

limestone in excess of the prescribed limit under the EC and thus

the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the mining

lease agreement and the statutory provisions. The respondents

while relying upon Section 3 (fa) of the MMDR Act submits that

word 'production' has been defined as winning or raising of

mineral within the leased area for the purpose of processing or

dispatch and the petitioner has excavated mineral limestone for

processing and dispatch, which includes crusher reject. In the

limestone processing, limestone crushing screening etc. are

included and after crushing screening, usable limestone is process

for cement manufacturing and crusher screening rejects are

stocked for further future use. It is further asserted that the

petitioner has proceeded to excavate 57780 MT mineral limestone

in excess to the limit prescribed under the EC issued in its favour,

therefore, for 57780 MT mineral being excavated in excess to the

prescribed limit under the EC, the petitioner has rightly been held

liable to be penalized.

21. The respondents have further averred that as per approved

mining plan, overburden from total excavation of mineral is

separate and remaining material is sent to crusher, whereas mine

bolder sizing is reduced, which rather does not create any waste

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (12 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

but only size is reduced and the -12 mm size mine bolder is being

stored by the leaseholder for future use. Thus, essentially the

reject is also limestone and produced from the mining lease,

which is usable.

22. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner itself has accepted that it has done production in excess

of the prescribed limit under the EC and the petitioner is

essentially trying to justify the admitted excess production being

done by it beyond the prescribed limit under the EC. Learned

counsel for the respondents relied upon decision in the case of

Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors. : (2019) 11 SCC 674.

23. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties, have perused the material available on record and have

perused the judgments cited at bar by counsel for the parties.

24. This Court finds that the respondents issued notice to the

petitioner on 19.11.2019 alleging therein that the petitioner has

violated the provisions of Rules 11 (1), 31 (4) and 45 (7) of the

Rules of 2017, as the petitioner has excavated mineral in excess

i.e. beyond the limit prescribed under the EC issued by the

competent authority in its favour along with other allegations. It is

seen that the petitioner filed reply to the said notice on

09.01.2020 (Annex.4) and thereafter another notice was issued to

the petitioner, wherein the petitioner's reply was found satisfactory

in respect of all the allegations levelled, except for the allegation

that the petitioner has excavated mineral in question in excess.

The petitioner had again filed a detailed reply to the show cause

notice, however, the petitioner was unable to give a satisfactory

reply in respect to excess excavation of the mineral limestone. It

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (13 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

is important to note that the petitioner has placed on record reply

dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.6), which was in response to letters

dated 19.11.2019 and 08.01.2020, wherein the petitioner has

itself admitted that its ROM production has been raised 28,57,780

MT as reported under Item 4.2 (B) (I) of Part-V in the annual

return submitted for the year 2018-19.

25. Upon perusal of said reply dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.6),

though the petitioner has agreed that its ROM production has been

raised, but in the subsequent paragraphs, the petitioner has tried

to justify the said excess production. The petitioner has tried to

make out a case that the respondents have wrongly construed the

definition of 'production' as laid down under Section (3 fa) of the

Rules of 2017 and the definition of 'Run of Mine' as laid down

under the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy

Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (Rules of 2016).

26. The definition of 'production' under Section 3 (fa) of MMDR

Act, 1957 and 'Run of Mine' under Rule 2 (1) (f) of the Rules of

2016 reads as under:

"3 (fa). 'production' or any derivative of the word 'production' means the winning or raising of mineral within the leased area for the purpose of processing or dispatch.

2 (1) (f). 'run of mine' means the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state obtained after blasting, digging from the mineralised zone of a lease area."

27. The definition of 'mineral rejects' as laid down under Rule 3

(1) (s) of the Rules of 2017 is also reproduced as under:

"3 (1) (s). 'mineral rejects' include all the excavated materials that do not constitute useful material, which may be rejected either on the basis of grade or size."

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (14 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

28. This Court also considered the contention of petitioner that

as per the definition of 'mineral rejects', the excavated material,

which do not constitute useful material, has to be considered as

'mineral rejects' and the respondents have wrongly considered

ROM as production of limestone, whereas the same ought to have

been treated as mineral rejects/crusher reject. It is seen that the

respondent No.6 issued EC dated 29.07.2004 in favour of

petitioner for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 for

production of limestone and the quantity is prescribed as 2.4

MTPA. For the year 2018-19, the MoEFCC issued EC dated

17.09.2007 in favour of petitioner specifically mentioning therein

that the project proponent shall not exceed annual limestone

production from the mine beyond 2.8 million tonnes. From the

material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner

has excavated the mineral limestone in excess to the limit

prescribed under the EC.

29. This Court finds that petitioner's contention that before

issuing the impugned demand notice/order dated 26.12.2022

(Annex.15) no opportunity of hearing was extended to the

petitioner, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as from the

documents placed on record, it is clear that the petitioner has

been served upon umpteen number of notices by the respondent

No.3 IBM, however, the petitioner has failed to establish before

the respondents that it has not done production of mineral

limestone in excess. A perusal of the documents viz. notice dated

19.11.2019 (Annex.2) and letter dated 04.05.2020 (Annex.7)

issued by respondent No.3 IBM, it is revealed that respondent

No.3. IBM had categorically directed the respondent State to

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (15 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

proceed against the petitioner as the petitioner was unable to

satisfy that it has not done production in excess and also to

recover penalty accordingly. As number of notices and opportunity

of hearing has already been afforded to the petitioner by

respondent No.3, thus no more opportunity of hearing was

required, as at no point of time by filing reply before the

respondent No.3, the petitioner was able to make out a case in its

favour and further learned counsel for the petitioner was not able

to demonstrate before the Court the relevant provision of law

under which the respondent State was required to issue a notice

to the petitioner.

30. It is seen that the respondent-Mining Department in the

reply filed have placed reliance upon para 10 (a) of the order

dated 23.05.2003 issued by respondent No.3 approving the

mining plan and progressive mine closure plan while submitting

that a bare perusal of para 10 (1) would reveal that the petitioner

is using +12 mm size of limestone for production of cement and -

12 mm size of limestone separately in stock as crusher reject.

They have further stated that in chemical examination of crusher

reject, it is found that the reject is having 60% CaCo3 and in the

bench scale study carried out by IBM, Ajmer, CDE Asia and Derrick

Corporation, USA 70% recoverable mineral has been mentioned.

This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by

counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner has also

proposed to install washing plant to up-grade the reject in the

mining plan, the said 'mining rejects'/waste are utilized by the

petitioner in cement manufacturing. The contention of the

petitioner that the 'mineral rejects' is of no use for it, cannot be

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (16 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

countenanced and for the mineral limestone excavated in excess

to the limit prescribed under the EC, the petitioner has rightly

been held guilty and thus is liable to the pay the penalty.

31. This Court finds that the revisional authority in its order

dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) has observed that the petitioner is

relying upon definition of 'ROM' provided under Rule 2 (viia) of

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, whereas after publication of the

notice dated 04.06.2016, the Minerals (Other than Atomic and

Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 have

come into force and the definition of 'ROM' has to be applied as

per Rules of 2016. The definition of 'ROM' as laid down under the

Rules of 1960 and under the Rules of 2016 reads as under:

Definition of 'ROM' under the Rules of 1960:

"the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state obtained after blasting, digging, cutting or scrapping from the mineralized zone of a lease area."

Definition of 'ROM' under the Rules of 2016:

"the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural state obtained after blasting or digging, from the mineralized zone of a lease area."

32. This Court finds that a close scrutiny of the definition of

'ROM' as laid down under the Rules of 2016 very specifically

includes the 'raw, unprocessed or uncrushed material in its natural

state, which has been obtained after blasting or digging, from the

lease area and thus any material, which has been obtained after

blasting or digging' and the raw, unprocessed or uncrushed

material, has to be construed under the definition of 'ROM' and

not under the definition of 'mineral rejects'; and the petitioner is

utilizing the mineral limestone, which is contended by it, as

mineral rejects, for production of cement. The revisional authority

[2024:RJ-JD:24921] (17 of 17) [CW-6217/2024]

after applying its mind and examining all the material placed

before it, has held that 'mineral rejects' are also part of production

along with limestone, which is used by the petitioner in cement

manufacturing and, therefore, the petitioner's contention that the

production of limestone is to be calculated after deducting the

crushed rejects from ROM, is found to be contrary to the

definitions of 'ROM' and 'Mineral Rejects' as laid down under the

Rules of 2016 and the Rules of 2017 respectively.

33. This Court finds that petitioner's contention is absolutely

misplaced and fallacious, as definition of 'mineral rejects' can be

applied to the excavated material that do not constitute useful

material. However, in the present case, the excavated material i.e.

limestone duly excavated by the petitioner is being utilized by the

petitioner for the purpose of cement manufacturing and thus it

cannot be said to be not useful material for the petitioner. The

respondents thus were justified in imposing penalty of

Rs.2,77,05,522/- upon the petitioner for excess production

beyond the prescribed limit under the EC done by it and the

revisional authority has not committed no error in passing the

order impugned dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30).

34. In view of above discussion, the demand notice demand notice dated 26.12.2022 (Annex.15) issued by the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh and the order impugned dated dated 03.04.2024 (Annex.30) passed by the revisional authority do not require any interference by this Court in the instant writ petition.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition as also stay petition are

dismissed. No costs.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 32-Devesh-DJ/-