AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition has been filed by Shree Ram Toll Tax and Royalty Collection Contract Company, Hindaun City, challenging the correctness of the order dated 29.06.2000 (Annexure-9) passing by the Mining Engineer, Karauli, and order dated 23.07.2002 (Annexure-11) passed by the State Government, with further prayer that action of the respondents in forfeiting the security of the petitioner be declared illegal and they may further be directed to reduce the amount of excess royalty collection contract proportionately to the forest area in respect of the petitioner.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered partnership firm having 13 partners. An auction notice was issued by the Mining Engineer, Karauli, which was published in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 11.04.1998, whereby bids were invited for excess royalty collection contract, which was in respect of excavation of mineral falling in the revenue boundary of village mentioned at serial No. 1 therein. Another auction notice was also issued on 20.05.1998. Petitioner participated in the auction proceedings took place on 22.06.1998. The bid of the petitioner, being the highest of Rs. 32,85,101/- per annum, was accepted on 22.06.1998 itself. On completion of formalities, an agreement came to be executed on 01.07.1998, which was effective from 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.10.1999, the rate of royalty was increased, as a result of which excess royalty collection contract amount was also increased from Rs. 32,85,101/- to Rs. 38,34,963/-, with effect from 01.10.1999. The State Government also increased permit fee with effect from 01.01.2000, as a result of which the excess royalty collection contract amount was further increased to Rs. 4,01,314/-. At the time of auction, it was made clear that the contract was for the area falling in the revenue boundary of the villages mentioned in the auction notice and not for any forest area. The Regional Forest Officer, Hindaun City, vide letter dated 19.06.1999 informed the petitioner about illegal mining going on in the area and asked the petitioner to take steps to stop the same. Reminder was also received by petitioner on 17.02.2000, wherein it was mentioned that 70% of the area in the revenue boundary of the villages mentioned in the auction notice, falls in the forest area and therefore, the petitioner was directed not to recover excess royalty in respect of minerals excavated from the forest area. The petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned Minister on 30.05.2000 for reducing the amount of royalty collection as the area has been reduced by 70% and the contract was given by the State Government on assumption that the mining activity would be undertaken in the revenue boundaries of the villages mentioned in the auction notice. The Mining Engineer concerned was called for to submit explanation and in response thereto, he replied vide letter dated 12.06.2000 that the factual aspect as stated by the petitioner was correct but stated that he was not competent to reduce the amount. Thereafter the Mining Engineer, Karauli, just before one day of completion of contract period, without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, cancelled the contract on 29.06.2000 and ordered for forfeiture of the security amount and further demanded arrears of royalty collection amounting to Rs. 9,91,229/-. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1046/2002, which came to be decided by this court vide order dated 08.02.2002 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2000 and ordered that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner till decision of the representation. The respondent No. 1, vide order dated 23.07.2002, rejected the representation of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
Shri G.S. Bapna, learned senior counsel for petitioner, argued that in the contract that was entered between the petitioner and respondents, there was clear mention that the contract was in respect of excavation of mineral falling in the revenue boundary of villages mentioned in the auction notice. There was no mention that 70% of the area is falling within the forest land. The State Government ought to have disclosed this fact clearly in the notice inviting tender and thereafter in the contract. Since the auction for collection of the royalty was in respect of excavation of mineral falling in the revenue boundary of the villages mentioned therein, on reduction of the area thereof, the petitioner ought to be granted relaxation in the amount of royalty collection due to stoppage of mining activities in the large area on account of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 -T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India and others. It is contended that the petitioner on coming to know this fact, submitted representation. The Mining Department admitted that no mining operations could be carried on 60% of the area and therefore the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2000 ought to be accepted by the State Government and amount of royalty collection should have been reduced proportionately. In this connection, reference is made to Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, which clearly provides that as and when the area of mining lease is reduced in size, the dead rent of such lease should also be reduced. On the same analogy, when the mining area is reduced, the royalty collation should also be reduced. The respondents made misrepresentation regarding the area of mining, which led to the petitioner making higher bid. The respondents have seriously erred in forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 4,10,638/- as the same stood already adjusted towards the dues of the petitioner as per letter dated 10.08.1998. But for the subsequent period the excess royalty collection contract has been given for Rs. 22,21,000/- per annum only as per order dated 01.11.2001, which fortified the claim of the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel argued that the respondents have illegally cancelled the lease of the petitioner just one day before completion of contract period and this was done by them without any notice to the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel has referred to the order dated 02.05.1998 (Annexure-14) passed by the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, and argued that in similar circumstances the proportionate reduction was given in the amount of excess royalty collection contract because many mines were closed down in the area of the contract in question.
On the contrary, Shri N.S. Chauhan learned Deputy Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition and submitted that earlier also the petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition and this court disposed of the same requiring the petitioner to make a representation. All the arguments, which the petitioner has raised now, were also raised in the representation so submitted. The representation has been dismissed by the State Government by a detailed order dated 23.07.2002. Therein it was specifically mentioned that all the Rules regarding the Forest Department and reserve forest will have to be complied with and that the petitioner was fully informed about the obligation towards the rules and regulations in force in regard to forest area. The order of the Supreme Court was passed on 12.12.1996 whereas the contract was awarded by the Director, Mines and Geology, vide order dated 01.07.1998. The period of contract was from 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2000. It is thus clear that the contract was awarded much after the order of the Supreme Court was passed. The plea raised by the petitioner thus does not stand on strong ground.
The learned Deputy Government Counsel refuted the argument that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to cancellation of the contract. In fact, the petitioner proceeded in committing default and did not make payment of amount of royalty despite repeated demands. The notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.05.2000 for depositing the due amount of excess royalty but despite receipt of said notice on 04.05.2000 the petitioner did not deposit the amount of royalty and therefore the order dated 29.06.2000 was rightly passed forfeiting the security amount by cancelling the contract.
Learned Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents submitted that even otherwise if the remaining period was one day that would not make any significant change as to the position of the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this court is inclined to uphold the argument of the respondents in the present case in view of the detailed reasons given by them in the order dated 23.07.2002 rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner. The said order was passed by the respondents pursuant to judgment of this court dated 08.02.2002 in the Writ Petition earlier filed by the petitioner. Mere description of the boundary of the area would not imply that even if mining was banned in some part of that area by order of the Supreme Court or by any other law, the petitioner would be entitled to claim proportionate reduction in the amount of excess royalty collection contract. This even otherwise cannot be accepted on facts because auction took place on 22.06.1998 and the petitioner was awarded contract for the period of two years from 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2000. The order of the Supreme Court was passed on 12.12.1996 whereby the mining operations in forest area were stopped. This fact was well known to all and especially to those, who are connected with the mining activities and the excess royalty collection contract. The court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996 was very widely reported and must be in the knowledge of the petitioner, who was connected with mining activities through excess royalty collection contract. The auction thus took place much after the order of the Supreme Court was passed.
The order dated 02.05.1998 (Annexure-14) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which was passed by the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur, cannot extend any help to the petitioner because in that case total 39 mines of Sikar district were identified which were operating on the date of contract and out of them 15 mines were closed down by the Forest Department with effect from 12.02.1995. In the present case, no such specific data have been furnished as to how many mines were operating on the date the contract was awarded and how many of them were closed down by the Forest Department. All that has been stated is that 70% of the area indicated in the notice inviting tender falls within the forest area. Even that aspect of the matter was not demonstratively substantiated. The judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 136 : (1980) 4 SCC 379 : (1981) 1 SCR 746 , cannot be applied to the facts of the present case because in the present case, the principle of natural justice were adequately complied with.
I therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.