Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – ss.9B, 14, 15, 15A – Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 – rr.21, 23(3), 54, 68 – District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017 – r.10(2) – Appellant was a successful bidder for mining of minor mineral i.e., sand and was allotted a tender – Demand Notice was issued calling upon the Appellant to deposit 10% amount of the deposited title amount with the DMF – Appellant challenged the Demand Notice before the High Court contending that the amount claimed was contrary to s.9B, 1957 Act – Challenge rejected – Sustainability: Held: s.9B, 1957 Act would not be applicable in the light of s.14 thereof – s.14 makes it clear that ss.5 to 13 of the 1957 Act would not be applicable to the present case as the mineral which is sought to be mined is a minor mineral i.e., sand – Plea of the Appellant based on s.9B(5) is misplaced – State Government has been empowered u/s.15A to determine and fix the amount – The empowerment being there under the Statute conferred on the State to determine the amount and the fixation thereof for minor minerals cannot be faulted with – Demand Notice issued to the Appellant requiring him to deposit 10% of the title amount i.e. the total amount payable for the minor minerals to be extracted was under and in accordance with the statutory Rules i.e., r.10(2), 2017 Rules – Demand Notice and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is upheld, implying liability of the Appellant towards the DMF Trust. [Paras 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26] Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 – rr.68, 21, 23(3), 54 – District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017 – Appellant was a successful bidder for mining of minor minerals i.e., sand and was allotted a tender – In pursuance to the tender allotted and in consonance with the requirements of the Policy decision dated 22.04.2017, Demand Notice was issued calling upon the Appellant to deposit 10% amount of the deposited title amount with the DMF – Plea of the appellant that the Policy decision itself is not sustainable as the due process for issuance thereof as provided for in r.68, 1963 Rules was not adhered to:
Held: There was a reasoned decision at the end of the State for exercising its powers u/s.68, 1963 Rules which fulfills the requirement of the Rule – Further, an Order was also passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court in a PIL which had permitted and required the exercise of powers u/r.68, 1963 Rules by the State – This was because of the peculiar situation which was being faced by the State for the total ban on mining activity having been imposed leading to the stopping and delaying of construction and other development works, both in the Government sector as well as the private sector – Exercise of such power when the vital projects were being adversely affected would fall within the purview of r.68 empowering the State to proceed to frame such a Policy – Therefore, no fault in the whole process and procedure adopted by the State. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.