Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2275/2022 on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2275 OF 2022
21st SEPTEMBER, 2022
Between:
Satyendra Kumar Tomar ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Suhaas Ratna Joshi, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel
with Mr. Gajendra Kumar Tripathi,
learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand / respondents
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the demand notice dated 01.06.2022,
recovery certificate dated 28.06.2022, and the recovery
citation dated 09.09.2022, issued against the petitioner
for the failure of the petitioner to deposit the licence fee
in respect of the mining concession granted to the
petitioner for mining of RBM / minor mineral. The
2
petitioner was liable to pay Rs.6,07,53,495/- towards
royalty for a period 15.05.2020 to 14.05.2021, and
Rs.6,68,28,845/- for the period 15.05.2021 to
14.05.2022.
2) As per the notice issued to the petitioner it
appears that the petitioner has extracted 34,981.37
tonnes of minor minerals, whereas the petitioner has
deposited only Rs.1,47,51,000/-. The total liability in
respect of the said two years comes to
Rs.13,20,70,340/-, thereby leaving a balance of
Rs.11,73,19,340/-.
3) The submission of the petitioner is that the
petitioner could not carry on the mining activity in terms
of the mining lease due to the amendment carried out by
the State, inter alia, in Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Minor
Mineral (Concession) Rules 2001, vide Uttarakhand
Minor Mineral (Concession)(Amendment) Rules, 2021,
on 28.10.2021. The petitioner submits that by the said
amendment the respondents started granting concession
rights to Bhumidhars for concession of RBM from their
land at rates of royalty which are about 1/7th of the rate
at which the petitioner was granted the right to mine the
minerals. Consequently, the petitioner has not been
3
able to mine and sell the mineral in respect whereof the
licence was granted.
4) Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
challenged the said amendment in the Rules by filing
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2909 of 2021. We may observe
that we have heard that petition today, and allowed the
same, thereby quashing the amendment carried out in
Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, submits that the stand of the petitioners
stands completely vindicated.
5) We have heard leaned counsel for the
petitioner.
6) No doubt, the amendment to Rule 3 of the
Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001,
has been quashed by us, since we have found that by
the said amendment the respondents started granting
mining concession in respect of the RBM / minor mineral
at royalty rates, which are a fraction of the rates at
which the royalty is being collected through a
transparent public auction. However, in our view, that
by itself is no reason to assume that the petitioner was
prevented from carrying out the mining activity. The
petitioner has not surrendered the licence even after the
4
amendment of the Rules of 2001. There is nothing to
show that the mining activity was stopped by the
petitioner, and the reasons therefor are also not clear,
even if it were to be accepted that the petitioner stopped
the mining activity. The dispute raised by the petitioner
would require factual determination which we are not in
a position to undertake in writ proceedings.
7) We, therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty
to the petitioner to approach the civil court or such other
forum as may be available to the petitioner to ventilate
his grievances.
Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2022)
also stands disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2022
Negi
