Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 204 (JHR)

Anupam Kanti Das v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-20

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. 2. The petitioners have challenged Order Nos. 1391, 1386, 1390, 1387 and 1388 dated 16.11.2001 (Annexure 11 series) is sued by the Assistant Mining Officer, Dumka directing them to deposits the amounts mentioned therein. 3. On or about 15.10.1993. demands were raised against the petitioners by the Assistant Mining Officer for Rs. 5,100/- per month from July, 1998 to September. 1999, being the provisional royalty fixed on a minimum of 5000 sq. ft., per month. The petitioners challenged the said demand vide CWJC No. 3967 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.1996 by passing the following order: In these circumstances the demand of minimum royalty from the petitioner vide annexure 3 is quashed. The respondents are directed to collect from the petitioners the royalty which is payable in accordance with the terms of the lease and in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1972. 4. Thereafter when demands were raised by the Assistant Mining Officer they were again challenged by filing writ petition being WP (C) No. 3452 of 2001 which was disposed on 2.8.2001 by passing the following order: The petitioners will file a representation with his claim before the Asstt. Mining Officer, Dumka and may bring the decision of this Court including the order dated 4.5.1996 passed in CWJC No. 3957/94. If any such application is preferred by petitioners within three weeks, the Asstt. Mining Officer, Dumka will determine the issue afresh by a reasoned order taking into consideration the Courts decision and communicate the decision to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. It will be desirable for the Asstt. Mining Officer. Dumka to give personal hearing to the petitioners by fixing a date of hearing. Till final decision is taken, the respondents will not take step to recover the amount through certificate proceeding, if no certificate proceeding is initiated till date. The writ petition stands disposed of. with the aforesaid observations. 5. The petitioners made representation, admitting that minimum royalty per month was fixed in terms of the lease agreement, but due to certain reasons they were unable to pay the minimum royalty, which they were ready and willing to deposit including the arrears. This is all what was said in the representations. 6. with the aforesaid observations. 5. The petitioners made representation, admitting that minimum royalty per month was fixed in terms of the lease agreement, but due to certain reasons they were unable to pay the minimum royalty, which they were ready and willing to deposit including the arrears. This is all what was said in the representations. 6. The petitioners were asked to furnish certain registers and copies of transport challans by different office orders dated 12.10.2001. As the petitioners did not respond, again a notice dated 3.11.2001 was issued clearly saying that they did not furnish the said documents as per the earlier notice dated 12.10.2001 and directing them to produce the same within three days. According to the petitioners when they received the said notice on 8.11.2001, they requested for ten days more time for producing the said documents. It is further said in the writ petition that they did not receive the said notice dated 12.10.2001, but it is important to note here that the petitioners did not say in the said letter dated 8.11.2001 that they did not receive the aforesaid letter dated 12.10.2001. Therefore, this submission of the petitioners that they did not receive the said notice dated 12.12.2001 is clearly an afterthought and cannot be accepted. Moreover the said registers and challans are required to be maintained in the ordinary course of business and there should not have been any difficulty in producing the same immediately within three days if they were actually maintained. Petitioners could not be given chance to manufacture them. 7. Thus it is clear that inspite of sufficient opportunity, petitioners did not produce the documents. In these circumstances, the Assistant Mining Officer was left with no option than to assess the due on account of royalty to the best of his judgment on the basis of the available materials, under the impugned orders dated 16.11.2001 (Annexure 11 series). 7. Thus it is clear that inspite of sufficient opportunity, petitioners did not produce the documents. In these circumstances, the Assistant Mining Officer was left with no option than to assess the due on account of royalty to the best of his judgment on the basis of the available materials, under the impugned orders dated 16.11.2001 (Annexure 11 series). The relevant portion of Rule 33 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (for short "the Rules") reads as follow: Challans, Registers, returns and signboard--Every lease or permit holder who intends to dispatch minerals, by rail, road or river shall issue challans in Form F to the Carriers who shall produce the same on demand by any Competent Officer [or Collector or Deputy Director (Mines) or Additional Director Mines) or Director of Mines or any other officer authorised by them.] (2) Every lease or permit holder shall maintain Register in Form G in which day to day transaction shall be entered. [He shall also have to display a signboard exhibiting following information (i) Name of kiln-owner, (ii) Mauza and plot No. of the land on which kiln is situated (111) volume of brick earth excavated so far (iv) date of starting brick-laying (v) date of firing the kiln (vi) No. of rounds already completed by kiln (vii) stock of bricks on site on the day.] (3) Every lessee or permit holder shall submit every month to the Competent Officer a true and correct return for minerals in Form H by the fifteenth of the following month to which it relates. (4) Every lessee or permit holder shall give all reasonable facilities to the Competent Officer [or Director of Mines or Additional Director of Mines or Deputy Director of Mines] or any other Officer authorised by the Collector in this behalf to inspect, verify and check the accounts of the minerals. (5) If the accounts, returns and other evidence produced by the lessee: permit-holder or any other person who has removed minerals, are in the opinion of any of the officers authorised under Rule 33 (1) incorrect, incomplete or unreliable either wholly, or partly, the officer concerned, shall report to the Competent Officer who shall proceed to assess to the best of his judgment. the amount of royalty due from the assessee: ... 8. the amount of royalty due from the assessee: ... 8. As per the definition of the "Competent Officer" in Rule 2 (iii)(b), the Assistant Wining Officer is the competent officer. As the petitioners did not furnish the said registers and challans and did not co-operate the competent officer in assessing the royalty, there was no occasion for him to give personal hearing to them. As noticed above, inspite of sufficient opportunity, the petitioners did not produce the said documents and, therefore, in view of Rule 33 (5), the Assistant Mining Officer was justified In proceeding to assess the due on account of royalty to the best of his judgment on the basis of the available materials. 9. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The respondents are directed to proceed for realisation of the royalty due from the petitioners, on the basis of the impugned orders or the returns filed by them, if any, whichever is higher. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.