Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1179 (ALL)

VIR SINGH ALIAS MITTHU LAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-09-05

M.KATJU, M.P.SINGH

body2002
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition had been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to charge any amount from the petitioner for transporting moram greater than the cost of Form mm-11 for the issuance of the said Form. It was also prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to refund the amount already taken from the petitioner for issuing Form MM-11. ( 2 ) IN this case on 1. 8. 2002, we had passed the following interim order : "heard learned counsel for the parties. Until further orders, we direct that the respondents shall charge only the cost of Form MM-11 for issuing the same and not any greater amount. " ( 3 ) WE are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lease period in respect of which Form MM-11 was issued has expired and hence, the first prayer has become infructuous. Hence, we are dealing with the second prayer. ( 4 ) THE petitioner had participated in an auction/tender proceeding of a lease of sand/moram for a period from 1. 10. 2000 to 30. 9. 2001 and he was granted the said lease. The lease was of plot in khand-1 in Dadari and Khand No. 5 in Kurouna, Oral district Jalaun. The auction was held under Chapter 4 of the U. P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963. For the purpose of transporting of minor and minerals, Form MM-11 is required under Rule 70. Whenever the petitioner had to transport the sand/moram, he applied for transport pass in Form MM-11. It is alleged that the respondent charged an exorbitant amount from the petitioner for supplying printed Form MM-11. A sum of Rs. 1,20,000 was paid by the petitioner for getting these Forms on 13. 12. 2000 and Rs. 90,000 on 5. 1. 2001 vide paragraph 1 of the writ petition. During the subsistence of the lease from 1. 10. 2000 to 30. 9. 2001, it is alleged that various exorbitant amounts had to be paid by the petitioner for obtaining Form MM-11. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. ( 5 ) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that the exorbitant amount charged for supply of Form mm-11 is without any authority of law. We agree with this submission. There is no law which authorises this charge. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. ( 5 ) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that the exorbitant amount charged for supply of Form mm-11 is without any authority of law. We agree with this submission. There is no law which authorises this charge. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it has been stated in paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 11 and 12 that the amount of auction money which falls short of the royalty payable by the petitioner for the mineral taken out which the petitioner extracted from the land is being charged as price for supplying Form mm-11. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the amount charged for obtaining Form MM-11 is wholly illegal because the auction is held under Chapter 4 of the Rules and Rule 23 (3) prohibits the application of Chapter 3 of the Rules which contains the provision of payment of royalty. Hence, no royalty is payable for extraction of minerals. Hence, the only money which the petitioner has to pay is the auction money. In fact, the State Government has also taken the same stand vide Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount taken from the petitioner for issuing Form MM-11 within two months of production of a certified copy of this order before the District Magistrate along with interest at 12% from the date of deposit till the date of payment. .