1971 (3) TMI 122 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes royalty demand notices, upholds 'brick-earth' mineral declaration, deems Mines Act constitutional.

The court quashed the demand notices for royalty issued to the petitioner-firm due to the absence of a subsisting contract with the State Government. ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether 'brick-earth' has validly been declared a minor mineral by the General Government Notification No. G.S.R. 436, dated 1st June 1958, under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957.2. Whether the demand notice for royalty issued to the petitioner-firm is valid.3. Whether the petitioner-firm has the locus standi to bring the writ petition.4. Whether the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, and the notifications and rules framed thereunder are constitutional.5. Whether the State Government has the right to levy royalty on brick-earth.Detailed Analysis:1. Declaration of 'Brick-Earth' as a Minor Mineral:The primary issue was whether 'brick-earth' was validly declared a minor mineral by the General Government Notification No. G.S.R. 436, dated 1st June 1958. The notification included 'murrum, brick-earth' as minor minerals. The court examined the absence of a comma between 'murrum' and 'brick-earth' and concluded that the omission was a printer's error. The subsequent notification G.S.R. 901, dated 22nd March 1969, corrected this error. The court relied on established rules of statutory construction that punctuation is not integral to the statute's meaning. The court also considered expert testimony and concluded that the notification validly declared 'brick-earth' as a minor mineral.2. Validity of the Demand Notice for Royalty:The petitioner-firm challenged the demand notice issued by the District Industries Officer, Ambala, for royalty on brick-earth. The court found that the petitioner neither held a prospecting license nor was a mining lessee or holder of a short-term permit as required by the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964. The court concluded that without a subsisting contract between the petitioner and the State Government, no royalty could be levied. Consequently, the demand notice for royalty was quashed.3. Locus Standi of the Petitioner-Firm:The respondent State of Haryana argued that the petitioner had no locus standi to bring the writ petition as the rights for the extraction of brick earth and clay belonged to the Government. The court, however, did not find merit in this argument and proceeded to consider the petition on its merits.4. Constitutionality of the Provisions:The petitioner argued that the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, and the notifications and rules framed thereunder were unconstitutional. The court examined the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 54, List I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It was argued that 'mineral' was not comprehensively defined in the Constitution or the Act, and Parliament could only legislate on substances that were minerals in a popular or scientific sense. The court, referencing a long line of judicial precedents, concluded that the term 'mineral' is not a term of art but a common English word with a broad meaning. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 3(e) of the Act and the notification declaring 'brick-earth' as a minor mineral.5. Right to Levy Royalty:The petitioner argued that under Section 14 of the Act, the State Government could not levy royalty on minor minerals. The court clarified that Sections 14 and 15 of the Act must be read together. Section 15 grants the State Government the power to make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of minor minerals, which includes the power to levy royalty. The court found that the State Government had the right to levy royalty on minor minerals, including brick-earth, as per the rules framed under Section 15.Conclusion:The court quashed the demand notices for royalty issued to the petitioner-firm on the ground that no subsisting contract existed between the petitioner and the State Government. However, the court upheld the validity of the notification declaring 'brick-earth' as a minor mineral and found no unconstitutionality in the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.