STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus RAMESH PRASAD VERMA (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 31-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 342 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
v. 
RAMESH PRASAD VERMA (DEAD) THR. LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1258of2017) 
JANUARY 31, 2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 - Bihar Minor 
Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 - r. 26 - Rent/royalty 
and assessment - Notification dated 24. 03.2001 whereby rate of 
royalty for minerals used for making chips, was stipulated to be 
Rs. JOO/- per cubic 111ete1; on and from 01.04.2001 - Footnote to 
the effect that the identified areas thereof would be notified 
separately - Demand notices for the said period - Deposit of the 
said amount - Thereafter, notification dated 26.12.2001 identifYing 
the areas wherefrom the minerals involved, if extracted would attract 
royalty - Challenge to, by respandents-dealing in minerals used 
for making chips - High Court held that once the areas were 
identified by Notification dated 26.12.2001, demand would relate 
back to 01.04.2001 - In appeal, Division Bench held that the 
realization of royalty at the higher rates, as fixed by Notification 
dated 24.03.2001, was not realizable from the date prior to 
26.12.2001 -
On appeal, held: Having regard to the two 
Notifications and the footnote, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 
is only clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as it declares only the areas 
from which, if the minerals concerned are extracted would draw 
the rate of royalty already fixed by Notification dated 24.03.2001, 
payable on and from 01.04.2001 - No other interpretation would 
accord with the legislative intendment contained in Rule 26 as well 
as the objectives of the two Notifications - Conjoint reading of 
Rule 26 and the two Notifications predicates that the enhanced rate 
of royalty at Rs. JOO/- per cubic meter for minerals, which are used 
or are capable of being used for making chips would be realizable 
w.e.f 01.04.2001 and axiomatically thus, the respondents are liable 
to discharge the demand, therefor, as raised in terms thereof - High 
Court erred in interpreting the relevant legal provisions and the 
Notification dated 26.12.2001 in particular in holding that the 
enhanc.ed rates, as fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, would 
342 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA 
343 
(DEAD) THR. LRS. 
be payable for the minerals involved, as extracted from the two 
A 
areas, mentioned in the Notification dated 26.12.2001 on and from 
that date - Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside. 
Interpretation of statutes - Restrospective operation - Held: 
Any legislation or instrument having the force of law. if c/arificatory, 
declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, in order to supply 
B 
an obvious omission or to clear up doubts qua any prior law, 
retrospective operation thereof is generally intended. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The footnote to the Notification dated 
24.03.2001, in clear terms, proclaims that the areas of the two 
categories of the minerals, corresponding to SI. Nos.1 and 2 
(boulder, gravel, shingle, which are used for making chips) once 
identified, would be notified separately as per the Rules. 
Eventually, such areas being located in the Districts of 'R' and 
'B', having been identified by the Expert Committee constituted 
for the purpose, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 followed. A 
plain reading of this Notification would demonstrate, in 
unambiguous terms, that it is in continuation of the one dated 
24.03.2001 fixing the rate of royalty at Rs.100 per cubic meter 
for boulder, gravel, shingle, from which chips is prepared. Though 
it mentioned that the boulder, gravel and shingle found in the 
Districts of 'R' and 'B' were fit and suitable for making stone 
chips, albeit imputed by the respondents, there is in reality no 
alteration in the description of the minerals so as to exclude those 
extracted by them from the purview of this Notification or the 
one dated 24.03.2001. The words "is" and "fit and suitable" for 
making, in the attendant facts and circumstances, unmistakably 
refer to boulder, gravel and shingle, which either are used for 
making chips or are capable of making the same. [Para 15] [351-
B-E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.2 lt is apparent from Rule 26, that when a lease is granted 
G 
or renewed, amongst others, royalty would be charged at the rate 
specified in Schedule II and that the State Government may, by 
notification in the official gazette, amend the First and Seco

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.