Writ Petition No.3296 of 1993

17th September, 2009

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A. A. NAIK
Respondent Counsel: Mr. V. A. THAKRE

Cases Cited:
Baijnath Kedia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1436 [Para 3,15]
Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, AIR 1971 Bom 365 [Para 3,15]
Nanjanayaka Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 Kar 97 [Para 3]
T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe, AIR 1983 SC 150 [Para 4,16]
Hari Construction Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1995(1) Mh.L.R. 679 [Para 7,10,15]

JUDGMENT

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. :- By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a lease holder of 0.72 R land out of field Survey No.30/2/1 of Mouza Pimpalkhuta, Taluq Morshi, District - Amravati has challenged the orders of Collector dated 13.10.1992 and the subsequent order dated 27.10.1993 passed by the State Government in an Appeal and has also prayed for quashing and setting aside of show cause notices dated 13.07.1992, 29.07.1992, 26.08.1992 and 12.11.1993. The declaration that provisions of Section 48[7] of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MLR Code" for short) are ultravires the legislative powers of the State Government and therefore, unconstitutional, has also sought by prayer to strike it down. The petitioner has also complained of violation of the principles of natural justice and has stated that he did not receive the measurement report on the basis of which the recovery under Section 48[7] of the MLR Code has been sought. Hence, the mention of quantities of mineral in the body of this judgment is subject to this objection of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has a licence to extract minor mineral and at the relevant time it was valid & to operate for 5 years as per orders dated 08.01.1990. On 13.07.1992 a show cause notice was issued to him for recovery of royalty amount of Rs.15 lakhs and penalty of thrice the said amount i.e. Rs.45 lakhs. He was called upon to show cause as to why for extracting 10000 brass of minor mineral from river bed adjacent to land given to him, total amount of Rs. 60 lakhs should not be recovered from him. On 21.07.1992 he was informed that the site in dispute was to be measured on 23.07.1992 and he was called upon to remain present with necessary records. On 29.07.1992 another show cause notice was issued to him and said show cause notice mentions that, subsequent to the demand dated 16.07.1992 by petitioner, measurement was taken on 23.07.1992 in his presence. The said show cause notice states that the petitioner had extracted total 1289 brass of minor mineral, and that was from leased area. Out of it royalty for 450 brass was only paid and 175 brass material was available at site. Thus balance 664 brass was dispatched by the petitioner without paying any royalty. His accounts were also found to be not maintained properly. A show cause notice there invoking Section 4 [1] of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.M.Act" for short) and Rule 18[1][i][xii] of the Maharashtra Minor Minerals Extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Vidarbha Rules" for short), was issued. The provision of Section 21[5] of the M.M.Act for carrying out extraction outside the leased area and provisions of Section 21[4] thereof for seizure of tools and vehicles used, were also invoked. It appears that, the petitioner paid amount of Rs.16,966/-. Thereafter on 10.08.1992, he also sought installments to pay the balance amount of Rs. 34,774/-. Thereafter he also applied for removing the seals put on his vehicles and machines. On 26.08.1992 a third show cause notice was issued to him and this was in relation to 1289 brass of minor mineral. This show cause notice reveals that he extracted 664 brass minor mineral from within leased area, but did not pay royalty upon it. Remaining 545 (1289-664) brass were alleged to have been extracted from the area not leased out to him. This notice in paragraph no.8 invoked Section 48[7] of the MLR Code and called upon the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.1,04,322/- in relation to this 545 brass of minor mineral. By paragraph no.9 he was also called upon to show cause why action under Section 21[1] of the MM Act should not be taken against him. After receipt of this communication, petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.09.1992 and in that reply, along with other grievances also reiterated that measurement report was not supplied. On 13.10.1992 the impugned order was passed by the office of the Collector and by mentioning that reply to show cause notice was not acceptable, petitioner was called upon to deposit amount of Rs.1,04,322/-. The petitioner then filed revision under Rule 34-A of the Vidarbha Region Rules before the respondent no.1 and by order dated 27.10.1993 the Revisional Authority dismissed that revision. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court and on 01.12.1993. While issuing notice in the matter, the petitioner was directed to deposit amount of Rs.34,774/-. The balance recovery was then stayed and this interim order was continued on 14.03.1996 while issuing Rule in the matter. In view of the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 48[7] of the MLR Code notice to Advocate General has also been issued.

3. In this background, Shari. A.A. Naik, learned counsel for petitioner has invited our attention to the provisions of MM Act, particularly to Section 15 thereof to show that the grant of mineral licence for excavating minor minerals is also subject matter of Central Enactment. He has pointed out the provisions of Section 4 to show that, excavation from any area without licence is not permitted and under section 21[1] it is made punishable with imprisonment for two years and with fine. He contends that, because of Central Enactment occupying the field, the State Government and Legislature losses the power to make any provision in that respect and hence, provisions of Section 48[7], imposing penalty upon the petitioner for excavation of minor mineral is unsustainable. He points out that in section 15, while narrating aspects on which the State Government has been permitted to frame Rules, does not mention the head enabling it to make provision for imposition of penalty. Such head has not been deliberately inserted because of provisions of section 21. He points out that in Section 21, Parliament has prescribed a complete scheme in this respect. Section 21[1] prescribes punishment for illegal excavation. Section 21[4] prescribes seizure of tools, equipment, vehicles used for illegal excavation and Section 21[5] is the provision by which reimbursement of value of such illegally excavated minor mineral is also contemplated. He therefore, contends that in view of a complete scheme available in section 21, there is deliberate absence in section 15 of a provision enabling the State Government to legislate in that respect. He further argues that because of this arrangement of MM Act, the provisions of Section 48[7] which directly militate with or are duplication in part of the provisions of Section 21, cannot stand. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1970 SC 1436 (Baijnath Kedia Vs. The State of Bihar and others); judgment of this Court reported at AIR 1971 Bombay 365 (Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar and another); and judgment of learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court reported at AIR 1990 Karnataka 97 (Nanjanayaka and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others), to urge that in view of the Central Legislation occupying the field, the area stands abstracted from the jurisdiction of State Legislature and provisions in the nature of Section 48[7] could not have been made by it. He contends that, said provision is therefore, unsustainable as State Government never had power to enact it.

4. By placing reliance upon the judgment reported at AIR 1983 SC 150 (T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe and another) the learned counsel contends that the punishment prescribed for under Section 21 is already suffered by petitioner and he has paid part of the fine before approaching this Court, and thereafter paid remaining part as per the interim orders of this court. According to him, if the petitioner is required to pay amount as demanded under Section 48[7] of MLR Code, it will constitute double jeopardy.

5. The learned counsel further contends that, if provisions under Section 48[7] of the M.L.R. Code are held to be available to the State Government in addition to the provisions of the MM Act, it gives arbitrary power to the State Government to victimize any person like the petitioner. He states that in a given case the State Government may take recourse to Section 21[5] of MM Act only and recover the cost of minor mineral and royalty or tax and close the matter. In that case, it may not take recourse to Section 48[7] and make demand, apart from the price of the minor mineral removed, thrice that amount of penalty. In some cases, it may invoke only S.48(7) and avoid prosecution/seizure under S.21 alltohether. He contends that Section 48[7] of MLR Code is more onerous than section 21[5] of the MM Act, and if that provision is upheld it would lead to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as powers to pick & choose or discriminate would then be available to the State Government and the power can be exercised arbitrarily.

6. On merits, the learned counsel has contended that the apparent false hood or ingredients in the claim of the respondents is apparent from the fact of changing quantity of excavated material in their show cause notice. He states that, though initially the excavation was alleged to be of 10000 brass, in second show cause notice it was shown less and in third show cause notice it was brought down only to 1289 brass. He further states that the division of this 1289 brass into two quantities i.e. 664 brass from within mining area and 545 brass from area not leased to the petitioner, is again arbitrary. He contends that because of this only, a prayer for conducting measurement was made, but then result of measurement was never communicated to the petitioner. Though petitioner demanded copy of that measurement report, it was never supplied to him either by the office of the Collector or than by the Government in Revision. He further states that the consideration of his challenges by the office of the Collector or by the State Government is cryptic and there are no reason recorded for saddling petitioner with penalty or then for rejecting the revision filed by him.

7. Shri. Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents, has contended that the validity of Section 48[7] MLR Code is already upheld by this Court in judgment reported at 1995(1) Mh.L.R. 679 (Hari Construction Vs. State of Maharashtra and others). He contends that the provisions of Land Revenue Code deal with "lands and land revenue" and do not in any way encroach upon the field occupied by the MM Act. He has taken us through the said judgment to substantiate his contentions. According to him as the petitioner was present at the time of recording of measurement, he was aware of the measurement report and hence the demand of petitioner therefor is only to some how defeat the recovery under Section 48[7]. He prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

8. In his reply arguments, Shri. Naik, learned counsel points out that the aspect of validity has been considered by the Division Bench in the judgment mentioned above in altogether different circumstances. He contends that the provisions of Sections 4 to 15 of the MM Act as prevailing prior to amendment of the said Act in 1972, have only been looked into and therefore, the provisions of Section 15[1]A which has been amended and added on 10.02.1987 were not required to be considered. Thus according to him apparent conflict in Vidarbha Region Rules and Land Revenue Code was not required to be considered by the said Division Bench. He further states that the provisions made by the Parliament in Section 21 of the MM Act have not been also considered, so as to find out whether in the face of said provisions, action under section 48[7] MLR Code was permissible or not. He therefore, contends that the said Division Bench judgment does not in any way cover the controversy raised before this Court.

9. As already stated above, the question of exact quantity excavated by the petitioner from area not leased to him does not arise for consideration before us. The allegation was, he extracted total 1289 brass minor minerals and out of it 545 was from outside the leased area. The action under section 48[7] MLR Code is only in relation to this 545 brass and it is not in relation to 664 brass allegedly extracted from area leased out to him without paying royalty. The provisions of Section 48[7] of the MLR Code clearly show that if such a mineral is extracted form any place and right thereto vests in State & has not been assigned by the State Government, then only action thereunder is possible. It is therefore, apparent that the government has on account of this stipulation in Section 48[7] MLR Code taken recourse to it and in fact in paragraph no.6 of the show cause notice dated 28.06.1992, there is application of mind on these lines.

10. Provisions of MM Act and provisions of MLR Code are considered by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment in the case of Hari Construction (supra). Said consideration has not been impugned before us in any way and effort has been only to show that the Division Bench of this Court then was not required to consider the arguments as raised before us. The consideration of the controversy in paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the said Division Bench judgment clearly shows that, the MLR Code occupies a different field and does not in any way come in conflict with the provisions of MM Act, 1957. In paragraph no.8, the Division Bench has noticed that the said Act takes over the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the Union to the extent provided. It is also noticed that, it deals with minor minerals separately from other minerals. The MM Act is found dealing with minor minerals to certain extent and it has been observed that, to that extent the State Legislature looses it power. Then the competence of State Government to enact Section 48[7] MLR Code has been gone into, and it has been noticed that the answer depends upon the question whether the subject of revenue administration stood withdrawn from State Legislature by virtue of MM Act. The Division Bench has applied the doctrine of pith & substance and noted that, the object of Land Revenue Code was revenue administration i.e. to assess, charge and collect revenue which includes, penalty on account of illegal extraction of minor minerals vested in State Government. It has been noticed that, under Section 48[1] the minerals vested in State Government and it is entitled to appropriate enjoyment, including the power of sale and disposal thereof. The power of Collector under Section 48 MLR Code is found to be in the nature of recovery of damages on account of loss suffered, and revenue administration is found to have implied a right in Collector to impose penalty for unauthorised excavation of mineral which are vested in Government. In said paragraph, it has been concluded that, the MM Act and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code operates in different and distinct sphere and because of this finding, the contention that Section 48[7] of the MLR Code is ultra-vires to the Constitution has been negatived. The words used by this Court in this judgment are in the backdrop of challenge argued but the ratio that both enactments emanate from different lists under schedule VII of the Constitution and operate in distinct spheres clearly flows from it.

11. The provision of MM Act do not in any way divest the ownership of State Government either of land or on any minerals. Section 2 thereof which makes a declaration of expediency, reads : "2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control - It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided." Thus, only control of Union has been found to be expedient and in public interest by the said provision, which is in accordance with Entry No.54 of List 1. In Section 3 clause [a] definition of "Mineral" is inclusive, but then in clause [e] thereof, "minor minerals" have been separately defined. Section 13 prescribes power of Central Government to make Rules in respect of minerals, while Section 15 prescribe power of State Government to make Rules in respect of minor minerals. Clause [g] of Section 15[1A], permits making of Rules for fixing and collection of Rent. Royalty, fees, dead rent, fine or other charges. Similar power is also given to Central Government in Section 13 [2][a]. Accordingly, in terms of these powers the State Government has framed Vidarbha Region Rules, 1966. Section 4[1] of MM Act prohibits undertaking for any mining operation except in accordance with terms and conditions of the mining licence. None of these provisions therefore vest the ownership of minor mineral with the Central Government. The said instructions only control i.e. regulate mines and minerals.

12. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is dealing with lands and land revenue and under section 20, all lands which are not privately owned, vest in State Government. Under section 48[1], the right to all minerals wherever found, vests in State Government. Section 48[7] deals with the cases where said right of State Government is violated. The said provision clearly shows that its application depends on the place where any mineral is found and it operates only when such place is not leased or assigned for mining of that mineral by State Government. The provision therefore, clearly shows that it gets attracted only when the ownership rights of State Government over such mineral are violated. This violation of ownership rights is not regulated by the MM Act as it is integral part & parcel of right of revenue administration. It is to be noted recovery contemplated therein is without prejudice to any other liability incurred by wrongdoer because of his illegal act and hence, his liability under section 21 of MM Act is not affected in any manner.

13. The person who excavate with lawful authority is not subjected to said section 48(7). Also for excavation of mineral without royalty from a place which has been assigned therefor by the State Government, the said provision is not applicable. It therefore, clearly shows that when such action is in derogation of the ownership rights of State Government over such minerals, the State Government is competent to recover the penalty as stipulated in it. The penalty stipulated is three times the market value of the mineral extracted or Rs.1000/-, if thrice the value of extracted so mineral is less than Rs. One Thousand. It is also to be noticed that action thereunder is without prejudice to any other mode of legal action, that may be taken against him. Thus said provision itself contemplates that any other mode of action, if possible against such wrongdoer, is not affected thereby. It also does not contemplate any prosecution before levying such penalty.

14. The provisions of MM Act considered above, clearly show that action thereunder is for violating the provisions of the said Act i.e. for breach of regulatory measures enacted by the Parliament. Those regulatory measures do not in any way derogate from ownership of either land or minerals of State Government, which are subject matter of or a consideration under Land Revenue Code, particularly Section 48 thereof. The absence of provision in Vidarbha Region Rules for any punishment or penalty is therefore not relevant while considering the provisions of Section 48[7] of the MLR Code. In so far as the Vidarbha Region Rules are concerned, as the violation of regulatory measures is already taken care of in Section 21, the said provision could not have been made therein. However, it may be noted that by section 15 of MM Act, the State Government has been empowered to make Rules levying fine and the scope, nature or extent thereof does not require any consideration by us in the present controversy.

15. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court and consideration above, we find that Section 48[7] takes care of violation of rights to mineral vesting in State Government, and it therefore, operates in totally different field. It does not in any way encroach upon the field occupied by the MM Act and does not militate with any provision made thereunder. In view of this, it is not necessary for us to consider the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baijnath Kedia Vs. The State of Bihar and others; or judgment of this Court reported at Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar and another (both supra). This Court has in Hari Construction Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) already considered sufficiently this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

16. The finding above also shows that the recovery of penalty from petitioner is due to breach of ownership of State and reference to market value of extracted mineral for computation of penalty under section 48[7] is as an incident of ownership, It is not a punishment inflicted upon him under MLR Code to attract the doctrine of double jeopardy. Section 21 of MM Act does not deal with such violation of ownership rights at all. Hence, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe and another (supra) also does not require any consideration in the present matter. Similarly, the issue regarding relevance or otherwise of alleged impossibility of simultaneous obedience to both the provisions does not arise at all as both provisions do not operate on same subject or in same field. Needless to mention that argument about existence of arbitrary power to pick and choose in State and its possible use to discriminate between two wrongdoers or then to victimize petitioner by it are, even otherwise, without any legal basis. In any case, in present situation these challenges are also misconceived.

17. Perusal of reply to show cause notice filed by the petitioner on 25.09.1992 before the Collector, shows that he has denied application of Section 48[7] of Land Revenue Code, and has also denied the quantities allegedly excavated by him. After denial of those quantities, he has stated that measurement taken were incorrect and copy of measurement has (not) been supplied to him. He has stated that unless and until such copy is provided to him, he would not be in a position to effectively defend himself. It is not in dispute that this reply filed by him is on record before the Collector. In the impugned order dated 13.10.1992 the office of Collector has only given one line reason and that reason is reply submitted by the petitioner was not acceptable to the Office of Collector. The grievance made by the petitioner therefore, has not been looked into or evaluated, and the fact that, he had demanded copy of the measurement report is totally ignored. The said order is therefore a non-speaking order. This grievance about the order is raised by the petitioner in his revision under Rule 34-A of the Vidarbha Region Rules before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. The respondent no.1 has decided said revision on 27.10.1993. The said order runs into 4 paragraphs and first 3 paragraphs only show previous history and arguments. Last paragraph shows that the revisional authority has found after going through the record that Mining Officer has meticulously calculated the quantity of the material extracted by taking measurement in presence of the petitioner and hence there was no reason to disbelieve the calculations. Thus the contention that measurement recorded were incorrect has not been again looked into and that there was challenge to its correctness is lost sight of. Finding on propriety or correctness of said challenge is thus totally avoided by both these authorities. The fact that copy of the measurement or measurement report was not made available to the petitioner is again lost sight of. In view of this position, the impugned order dated 27.10.1993 of respondent no.1 as also the order of Collector dated 13.10.1992 are unsustainable. The same are accordingly quashed and set aside.

18. In view of the discussion above, the proceeding are restored back to the file of respondent no.2 Collector, for taking fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be supplied copy of measurement/measurement report and shall be given time to raise appropriate objection thereto. After such objections, if any, the Collector or the delegate shall proceed to hear the petitioner and decide the controversy, as early as possible. Writ Petition is therefore, partly allowed. Rule accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Ordered accordingly.