Learned advocate for the petitioner has invited this Court's attention to Page No.-192 and submitted that the present petition is also on the similar grounds. In that order, this Court has granted interim relief on the basis that the unilateral action of raising demand from the inception or older time without affording an opportunity of being heard and without making final order on the notices, the mining operation and/or issuance of passes cannot be stopped that amount to blatant irregularity and/or lack of jurisdiction to pass such orders. Therefore, in this case three notices are issued which are required to be stayed and/or some interim order is required to be passed where under the Royalty Passes which have been withheld wrongfully may be ordered to be released for the Bauxite mining.
Learned AGP, at this stage, submitted that this petition cannot be said to be identical to that of S.C.A. No.2974 of 2012, as in the instant case, the petitioner himself has submitted that he was dealing in "Bauxite using in Cement Grade and, therefore, IBM rates are applied". This would have an effect of rendering this petition different than the earlier one.
Learned AGP further submits that after the second show cause notice, reply was furnished by the petitioner wherein he has submitted the document which indicates that Bauxite to the tune of 2990 M.T. was used in a Cement Grade and the rates are calculated as per IBM Act for that quantity.
This Court is unable to accept this submission prima facie, at this stage, as plain reading of the last notice dated 26.05.2011 clearly indicates that a demand is raised on account of some investigation and/or inquiry made by the party i.e. GMRDS or its appointed Charted Accountant Firm and no opportunity of being heard is ever granted to the petitioner and the calculation and the demand is based upon this calculation. The entire approach prima facie does not seem to be just and proper or legal for that matter, as straight way raising demand and invoking clause under the lease deed for taking drastic steps and fasten the petitioner with liability since 2000 to 2010 smacks of sheer arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of the concerned authority. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in observing that ex facie the action of withholding of Royalty Passes and/or restraining the petitioner from mining, is illegal, improper, unreasonableness, unjust and contrary to the provision of law.
The petition is required to be admitted, hence, Rule, returnable on 23.07.2012.
To be heard with S.C.A. No.2974 of 2012. In the mean time and till the final disposal of the petition, the petitioner shall not be restrained from carrying out mining activities and obtaining Royalty Passes, if he is otherwise eligible and not restricted by any other authority under any other prohibitory orders. It is open to the authorities to pass appropriate order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in respect of demand in question.
Apropos the submission, qua not raising demand, qua the quantity namely, 2990 M.T., it would be open to the respondents to issue fresh notice and adjudicate the same in accordance with law and this order will not come in their way, if it is passed upon the admitted rates enforce, which are legally levyable and prescribed by IBM and here the petitioner thereon before passing the appropriate order.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Top