# Chandra v. Janardan Reddy and - **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 368 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-02-14 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2882 of 2003 - **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-v-janardan-reddy-and-40110 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963-R. 21 and 70-Liability to pay royalty-Arises when a lessee removes mineral from leased area question of issue of Form MM-11 by lessee arises only when a consignment of minor mineral is sent by Vehicles animal or any other mode of transport-held, petitioner having issued Form MM-11 between 1.4.2001 to 11.4.2001, he was liable to pay royalty at rate existing on that day- held. Held-Para- 6 & 7 From the aforesaid rule, it is clear that liability to pay royalty arises at the point when a lessee removes the mineral from leased area. Form MM-11 is issued for transportation of the mineral giving various details in Form MM-11. Rule 70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 is relevant in this respect. Thus the question of issue of Form MM11 by lessee only arises when a consignment of minor mineral is sent by vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. Petitioner having issued the Form MM-11 between 1.4.2001 to 11.4.2001, he was liable to pay the royalty at the rate as existing on that day. The fact that petitioner received Form MM-11 from the office of District Magistrate price to 31.3.2001 is not relevant. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 368 complaint and proceed to examine the complainant and his witnesses. 8. The Apex Court in Mahesh Chandra Vs. Janardan Reddy and others, reported in 2003 (4) A.C.C. page 182 has held that merely because the Magistrate has accepted the F.I.R., the same by itself would not stand in his way to take cognizance of the offence on a protest/complaint petition. 9. So far as the question of evidence is concerned, the court has to see whether there exists sufficient ground to proceed of not. By scrutinizing the impugned order of the Magistrate I find that there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and the order of the learned Magistrate and that of the revisional court are perfectly justified in view of the evidence available on record. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and therefore it is hereby dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2882 of 2003 Daljeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal Banda and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vinay Khare Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963-R. 21 and 70-Liability to pay royalty-Arises when a lessee removes mineral from leased area question of issue of Form MM-11 by lessee arises only when a consignment of minor mineral is sent by Vehicles animal or any other mode of transport-held, petitioner having issued Form MM-11 between 1.4.2001 to 11.4.2001, he was liable to pay royalty at rate existing on that day- held. Held-Para- 6 & 7 From the aforesaid rule, it is clear that liability to pay royalty arises at the point when a lessee removes the mineral from leased area. Form MM-11 is issued for transportation of the mineral giving various details in Form MM-11. Rule 70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 is relevant in this respect. Thus the question of issue of Form MM11 by lessee only arises when a consignment of minor mineral is sent by vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. Petitioner having issued the Form MM-11 between 1.4.2001 to 11.4.2001, he was liable to pay the royalty at the rate as existing on that day. The fact that petitioner received Form MM-11 from the office of District Magistrate price to 31.3.2001 is not relevant. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2002 passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal, Banda and the order dated 12.6.2001 passed by Collector, Mahoba. Petitioner is a holder of mining lease. In pursuance of the mining lease he has http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Than Singh and others V. Kishore Kumar and another 369 excavated and removed mineral in accordance with U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. Petitioner's case is that till Month of March 2001, the royalty was Rs. 20 per cubic metre and from 1.4.2001 it was enhanced from Rs. 20 to 30 per cubic meter. 3. The Collector, Mahoba issued an order dated 12.6.2001 directing the petitioner to deposit difference of royalty on user of Form MM-11 from 12.4.2001 to 30.4.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which too has been rejected by Commissioner. Against these two orders the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that Form MM-11 which has been used by the petitioner between 12.4.2001 to 30.4.2001 was issued prior to 31.3.2001, hence royalty can be charged only at the rate of Rs. 20 per cubic metre. 5. The finding recorded by appellate authority is to the effect that Form MM11 was used by the petitioner between the period 12.4.2001 to 30.4.2001. Rule 21 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 provides that holder of a mining lease shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from the leased area, Rule 21 is quoted as below : "21. Royalty:- (1) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of these rules shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from the leased area at the rates for the time being specified in the First Schedule to these rules. [(2) The State Government may, by notification, in the Gazette amend the First Schedule as to include therein or exclude there from or enhance or reduce the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification. Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral for more than once during any period of three years and shall not fix the royalty at the rate of more than 20 per cent of the pit's month value] (3) Where the royalty is to be charged on the pit's month value of the mineral the State Government may assess such value at the time of the grant of the lease and the rate of royalty will be mentioned in the lease deed. It shall be open to the State Government to re-assess not more than once in a year the pit's month value, if it considers that an enhancement is necessary." 6. From the aforesaid rule, it is clear that liability to pay royalty arises at the point when a lessee removes the mineral from leased area. Form MM-11 is issued for transportation of the mineral giving various details in Form MM-11. Rule 70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 is relevant in this respect] and is extracted as below : [70. Restrictions of transport of minerals : (1) The holder of mining lease or permit or a person authorised by him in this behalf may issue a pass in Form MM-11 to every person varying a consignment of minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. The State Government may, through the District Officer, make http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 370 arrangements for the supply of printed MM-11 Form books on payment basis. (2) No person shall carry, within the State, a minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport, excepting railway, without carrying a pass in Form MM-11 issued under subrule (1). (3) Every person carrying any mineral shall, on demand by any officer authorized under rule 66 or such officer as may be authorized by the State Government in this behalf, show the said pass to such officer and allow him to verify the correctness of the particulars of the pass with reference to quantity of the minor mineral. (4) The State Government may establish a check post for any area included in any mining lease or permit, and when a check post is so established public notice shall be given of this fact by publication in the Gazette and in such other manner as may be considered suitable by the State Government. (5) No person shall transport a minor mineral for which these rules apply from such area without first presenting the mineral at the check post established for that area for verification of the weight or measurement of the mineral. (6) Any person found to have contravened any provision of this rule shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.]" 7. Thus the question of issue of Form MM-11 by lessee only arises when a consignment of minor mineral is sent by vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. Petitioner having issued the Form MM-11 between 1.4.2001 to 11.4.2001, he was liable to pay the royalty at the rate as existing on that day. The fact that petitioner received Form MM-11 from the office of District Magistrate price to 31.3.2001 is not relevant. ] In the aforesaid view of the matter I do not find any error in the order of appellate authority. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.2.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1993 Mohd. Abdul and others ...Petitioners Verses The District Judge, Ballia ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri U.N. Sharma Sri S.B. Pandey Sri Dinesh Dwivedi Sri S.K. Singh Sri A.K. Gupta Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K.R. Sirohi Sri Amit Kumar S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226 Regularisation - petitioner was appointed as class III employee on