Allahabad High Court
ABDUL SAMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the petitioner could not dispute the demand and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner Abdul Samad challenged an order dated 25 March 2019 issued by the Additional District Magistrate demanding payment for alleged illegal mining and imposing a blacklist. The petitioner claimed that payments had already been made in excess of the demand and sought relief from coercive action. The State argued that the demand was based on the petitioner’s failure to deposit installments as per the mining lease and cited Section 15(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957. The court noted that the petitioner could not dispute the default and extended time for the petitioner to liquidate the outstanding amount, directing representation to the magistrate for installment payment. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of, effectively rejecting the relief sought by the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the demand for payment under the mining lease is valid under Section 15(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957
- Whether the petitioner has defaulted on installment payments as per the mining lease
- Whether the Additional District Magistrate has authority to impose a blacklist and demand payment for alleged illegal mining
Legislation cited
- Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation (MMDR) Act, 1957 — s. 15(3)
Subjects
- illegal mining
- mining lease
- royalty
- dead rent
- Section 15(3)
- Additional District Magistrate
- blacklisting
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 29091 of 2019
Abdul Samad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Kumar, Birendra Singh,
Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sarwar Ali
Siddique
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Ratan Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, under challenge is order dated 25th March, 2019 passed by
respondent no. 3 (the Additional District Magistrate) demanding payment
for recovery on allegation of illegal mining. Purported ex-parte inspection
was alleged to have been made, on the basis of which his client has been
issued impugned order along with blacklisting of his client. On query he
submits, in paragraph 3 particulars of payments already made in excess of
the demand, have been stated.
2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel
appears for State. He submits, paragraph 9 contains particulars of earlier
payments made. Demand in impugned order is post said payments period.
3. Impugned order was issued on 25th March, 2019. Petitioner upon
obtaining interim order dated 16th September, 2019 on direction
restraining coercive action, has now mentioned for urgent hearing. Mr.
Singh submits, rejoinder was filed. It is not available. He hands up his
copy.
4. Paragraph 21 from the counter is reproduced below.
"21. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 9, 10, 11 of the writ
petition, it is submitted that admittedly the petitioner has not deposited the
installment as per the schedule provided in the registered contract/mining
lease (relevant page 58 of the writ petition). The security deposit is subject
to the terms and conditions of mining lease."
Paragraph 10 in rejoinder dealing with paragraph 21 of counter is
WRIC No. 29091 of 2019
2
reproduced below.
"10. That the contents of para no.21 and 22 of the counter affidavit are
wholly misconceived and misleading hence, vehemently denied. In reply
thereto, it is submitted that c For ready reference, Section 15(3) of MMDR
Act, 1957 is quoted as under:
Section 15(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral
concession granted under any rule made under sub- section (1) shall pay
royalty or dead rent, which ever is more in respect of minor minerals
removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee,
contractor or sub lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the
rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals.
Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty
or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during
any period of three years."
There is no denial by petitioner on assertion of the authority of there
having been default on installment payments. In the circumstances,
petitioner cannot dispute the demand. We may go so far as to extend time
for petitioner to liquidate the balance. For the purpose petitioner may
make representation and produce certified copy of our order to obtain the
accommodation, for liquidation of the demand by installment payments.
In event such approach is made to respondent no. 3 (the Additional
District Magistrate), said authority to consider for purpose of obtaining
the arrears of revenue. On further default, if any, there be action for
recovery in accordance with law.
5. Petitioner's copy of the rejoinder be kept in the file for reconstructing it.
Mr. Singh submits, entire outstanding has been liquidated. The position
can be elaborated in the representation to be made.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 11, 2026
Jaswant
Digitally signed by :-
JASWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…