15 times royalty as penalty for extracting minerals from site

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Kar nataka has upheld the imposition of a penalty equal to 15 times the royalty payable on a builder who extracted minor minerals from the construction site without a valid quarrying license.

“The petitioner having carried out quarrying activity in violation of Rule 3 read with Rule 43 (3) of 1994 Rules and Section 4 read with Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act inasmuch as he has done all these sans licence, lease or permission,” the bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said while dismissing the petition filed by Ozone Urbana Infra Developers.

The Company had approached the HC challenging the order of the Deputy Director of the Mines and Geological Department.

On August 6, 2019, the Deputy Director had passed an order directing the company to remit a sum of Rs.1,26,00,000 for extracting construction stones from the site where it was constructing a building.

The Company contended in the HC that it had obtained the requisite orders from the concerned authorities to put up the construction and the order was passed without adhering to principles of natural justice.

It was also submitted to the court that the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules gives exemption to extracting minor minerals from one’s own property for personal use. The HC however agreed with the government advocate who claimed that the Company while excavating the earth at the construction site secured minerals without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

“The quantity of the minor mineral won during excavation of the area in question was quantified at 14,000 Metric Tons and this was done by the petitioner without securing the lease or licence,” the HC noted.

The HC also pointed out that the exemption granted under the rules is only for agriculturists. The Rules grant “exemption only to an agriculturist who removes minor minerals from his agricultural field for bona fide use or for betterment of the agricultural land provided that he too has secured a certification by the Agricultural Department to that effect.

Added he too has to obtain a valid Mineral Dispatch Permit. To put it shortly, petitioner does not fit into the exemption clause, especially when he is not putting up the construction for his own occupation,” the HC said.

The HC said that the imposition of the penalty was right and cited an earlier case.

“The Authorities on the complaint of the public having ascertained the quantum of the Minor Mineral sheltered in the area which the petitioner has extracted, have levied a penalty of fifteen times the royalty as per the Rules then extant. What the Authorities have done perfectly accords with the observations of this court in Writ Petition between M/s. JSW Steel Limited vs. Government of Karnataka.” WP 52343/2019