The petitioner, admittedly, took on lease mining rights from the 3rd respondent, which was granted on condition of payment of royalty or dead rent in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”]. The 3rd respondent having demanded dead rent, which obviously is more than the royalty provided, the petitioner challenged such demand before this Court in W.P.(C).No.16563 of 2004, which ended in Exhibit P1 judgment. This Court, looking at the provisions contained in the Rules, based on which mining lease was granted, found the petitioner liable to pay dead rent, if the same is in excess of the royalty paid. Modifications were made with respect to the interest and the liability was substantially reduced; but the petitioner was directed to satisfy the dead rent, in excess of the royalty already paid. In fact the petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee on the basis of a direction issued at the time of admission of the aforesaid writ petition, which was WP(C).No.29302 of 2010 - 2 - encashed to realize the amounts directed to be paid as per Exhibit P1. The petitioner, in the present proceedings, is aggrieved by the direction of the 3rd respondent to pay 5% collection charges.
2. The petitioner would point out that the issue was settled by a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Sub Registrar [2005 (3) KLT 150], wherein it was declared that when amounts are directly paid to the requisitioning authority, the defaulter is not liable to pay collection charges. The said judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Malabar Organics Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 328]. The Division Bench, in the concluding paragraph, had also directed the Government, the Corporations and institutions to examine each case on facts and do the needful in the matter of levy of the collection charges/service charges and for returning the documents and refund of excess amounts, if any collected, in the light of that judgment. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that the above matter has been taken up by way of Special Leave Petition to Supreme Court and the judgment is WP(C).No.29302 of 2010 - 3 -
stayed. Since the petitioner has not remitted the amount as of now, the Revenue would have to wait for the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to effectively realize the said amounts.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that no recovery be made from the petitioner at present; but, however, leaving liberty to the Revenue to move for recovery, if the Supreme Court finds the decision of the Division Bench to be erroneous. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.
vku/-
( true copy )