The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 21585 of 2023 Steel Authority of India Ltd. State of Odisha and others CORAM: ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. N.K. Sahu, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA Order No. 02.
Legal Reasoning
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 08.08.2023 This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the demand raised by the authority vide letter dated 25.01.2023 under Annexure-6 to the tune of Rs.13,37,49,485/- in respect of Purunapani Limistone and Dolomite Mines and consequential action taken by the authority to stop consideration of Mining Dues Clearance Certificate till realization of the aforesaid amount vide letter dated 01.07.2023 under Annexure-11. 4. Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Part-V (Production, Despatch and Stocks) the quantity of domestic consumption and exports has been indicated in the prescribed form and, as such, the petitioner sought permission vide letter dated 24.06.2022 in Annexure-3 for selling of limestone in open market from Purnapani Limistone and Dolomite Quarry (PL&DQ). Thereafter, again on 17.10.2022 in Annexure-4, the petitioner sought permission for selling of limestone in open market. Though there was discrepancy in stocks of Limestone Lump & Fines at Purnapani Limestone and Dolomite Quarry in the district of Page 1 of 4 Sudnargarh, the petitioner wrote letter on 31.10.2022 vide Annexure- 5 to the Deputy Director of Mines and in paragraph-2 of the said letter it was stated that as per the chemical property of limestone, it dissolves in a very high rate with water. As the limestone lump material is lying in lump stockpiles near crusher and near quarry side over more than 18 years, a considerable quantity of the same has been dissolved (weathered and eroded) and lying in the ground as deposition of fines, or washed away, which has not been accounted during physical verification. In response to the said letter, the Dy. Director vide letter dated 25.01.2023 communicated that there was discrepancy in stock of Limestone Lump at PL&DQ, Purnapani over an area of 230.525 Hects and stated that as per the assessment the total stock position was 550852.320 M.T. limestone. But as per the stock verification report dated 26.03.2004, the stock of limestone of 368092.000 M.T. is available in the field, resulting in a shortage of 182760.320 MT of limestone, for which the petitioner is liable to pay the cost price of mineral limestone and demanded a sum of Rs.13,37,49,485/-. As such, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the aforesaid cost price within a period of one month from the date of issue of the demand notice, failing which action would be initiated against it for realization of the dues. Against the notice of demand, the petitioner filed reply on 25.02.2023 in Annexure-7, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that no part of the MMDR Act, 1957 or the Rules framed thereunder from time to time or the Orissa Minerals Act and Rules, as referred to in letter dated 21.11.2022, which prescribed that if there is any shortfall in the quantity of the stock of the minerals which were lawfully extracted by a company having lawful lease-hold right over the mines in question, is liable to pay the cost of the differential stock of the minerals. Therefore, the demand Page 2 of 4 so raised being not a lawful demand, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount. In response to the same, the Deputy Director Mines issued letter dated 03.03.2023 contending therein that there is gross violation of the provisions contained in Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which clearly states that whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any minerals from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority, and that in the present case, the lessee has not obtained any permission to lift the above said quantity which is huge one, and that the reply submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 25.02.2023 is not satisfactory and acceptable. As a consequence thereof, the demand has been raised by the authority vide Annexure-11. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is availability of alternative remedy under the law. It is contended that since the opposite parties have not complied with the principles of natural justice, the petitioner may be permitted to file revision before the authority under Rule-54 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 6. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that the demand so raised by the authority is well justified because the petitioner has not obtained any permission prior to lifting the minerals and, therefore, a demand of Rs.13,37,49,485/- has been raised by the authority. It is further contended that for illegal lifting and removal of minerals, as Page 3 of 4 per Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the petitioner is liable to pay such demand. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that in one hand Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the mines belonged to the petitioner, whatever lifting has been made for the purpose, the petitioner is not liable for any demand raised by the authority, but on the other hand he failed to produce any material before this Court that any permission has been granted for lifting of the minerals quantified and determined by the authority. Therefore, although contention has been raised that lifting was made legally, no document has been placed on record to indicate the same has not been done illegally and without obtaining prior permission. Since disputed question of facts is involved in this writ petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to avail the alternative remedy as per Rule-54 of the Mineral Concession Rules. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the same and, as such, it is open to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if it is so advised. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 09-Aug-2023 11:17:16 Page 4 of 4