MS D M MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHANTANU JOSHI V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINES

WPC/7285/2019

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by M/s D.M. Minerals Private Limited and M/s Singhbhum Mineral Company against the Union of India, the State of Jharkhand, and the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa. The petitions challenged the enhancement of dead rent for China Clay, a mineral classified as minor, from Rs.2,000 to Rs.40,000 per acre per year by the State Government. The petitioners argued that the enhancement was arbitrary and lacked valid reasons, while the State defended the increase as a measure to compensate for financial losses due to non-utilization of leased mining areas. The court examined the legality of the enhancement under the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, referencing several Supreme Court judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722854 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: D. K. Trivedi & Sons and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., Quarry Owners' Association vs. State of Bihar and Ors., Raojibhai Jivabhai Patel and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr., S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jadgish Sharan Vardhney and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P A S PATI; PIYUSH CHITRESH; RAJIV SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA; ANKIT VISHAL
• Keywords: China Clay; Dead Rent; Enhancement of dead rent; Ultra Vires; Unconstitutional
• Section: 9; 3; 9A

Judgement Text

"[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7285 of 2019 M/s D.M. Minerals Private Limited, having its Registered Office at 141/1, Bauri Para Lane, P.O. Bauri Para Lane, P.S. Bauri Para Lane, District Kolkata-700 035 (West Bengal), through its Director Shantanu Joshi, aged about 43 years, son of Ram Gopal Joshi, resident of 114/1, Bauri Para Lane, Near Alam Bazar, Baranagar, P.O. North 24 Parganas, P.S. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata, West Bengal. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines having its office at Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, P.O. Shastri Bhawan, P.S. Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, West Singhbhum. … …Respondents With W.P.(C) No.6883 of 2019 M/s Singhbhum Mineral Company, through its Partner – Harilal Varjang Rathor, aged about 93 years, son of Late Varjang Rathor, Station Road, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, having its office at post Box No.24, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Mines having its office at Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, P.O. Shastri Bhawan, P.S. Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. [2] 2. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, West Singhbhum. … …Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the U.O.I. : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I. ---------------------------- CAV on 13.12.2021 Pronounced/Delivered on 29/06/2022 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. Both these writ petitions since having the same issue, as such, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: “(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring that part of the notification no. Kha.Ni.(Niti)-04/2018-1509/M dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure-4) published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary no.730 dated 19.09.2019 issued by the Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, as unconstitutional and ultra vires by which the rate of dead rent for China Clay has been enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per acre/year; (b) Upon declaring that part of notification no. Kha.Ni.(Niti)- 04/2018-1509/M dated 16.09.2019 published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary no.730 dated 19.09.2019 as unconstitutional an ultra vires be further pleased to quash and set aside the same and consequently restrain the respondents from giving effect to or acting pursuant to that part of the notification no. Kha.Ni.(Niti)- 04/2018-1509/M dated 16.09.2019 published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary no.730 dated 19.09.2019 by which the rate of dead rent for the mineral China Clay has been enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per acre/year.” [3] 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, reads as hereunder: According to the petitioners, the mineral-China Clay was initially a major mineral and was governed by the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1957”, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1960”. The Central Government, in exercise of power conferred by Clause (e) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act, declared the China Clay to be a minor mineral vide a notification bearing no.SO 423(E) dated 10.02.2015. Further fact of the case is that the lease deed was executed between the petitioners’ company and the Government of Bihar in relation to mineral-China Clay for an area of 38.400 hectares so far as it relates to W.P.(C) No.7285 of 2019 for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 09.01.1979 and 68.615 hectares of land so far as it relates to W.P.(C) No.6883 of 2019 w.e.f. 14.11.1963. The license lease had also been extended. However, on 10.02.2015, China Clay was notified as a minor mineral, as such, the lease of the petitioners were extended in terms of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules. The case of the petitioners is that, so far as the major minerals are concerned, the payment of royalty and dead rent is governed by Section 9 or Section 9A, as the case may be, read with 2nd Schedule or 3rd Schedule appended to the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the rate of dead rent for China Clay was increased by the Central Government to Rs.2,000/- per acre but [4] subsequently came under the category of minor mineral from major mineral. The State of Jharkhand resorting to the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Concession Rules, issued a notification on 19.09.2019, whereby the rates of royalty and dead rent of various minor minerals have been increased from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre/ per year. In the backdrop of such enhancement of the dead rent, the instant writ petitions have been filed questioning the decision of the authority of the State of Jharkhand for raising the rate in such an exorbitant manner. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the quantum of dead rent has been enhanced from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre that too without any valid reason, therefore, the same requires to be struck down. He further submits that by virtue of an order passed by this Court in the instant writ petitions, that the concerned department of the State Government was directed to apprise this Court about the reason of such enhancement. According to him, no such reason has been shown save and except the reason that since all the minerals which have been brought under the category of minor minerals from major minerals, their dead rent is required to be enhanced and accordingly, it has been enhanced. Therefore, according to him, the reason which is available in the minutes of meeting, which has been considered by the Cabinet of the State Government, cannot be said to be a valid reason for enhancement of dead rent to such a large extent, as such, it is required to be treated as unreasonable and arbitrary. [5] 5. Per contra, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the purpose of enhancement of the rate of dead rent is that, the licensees like the petitioners are not carrying out the mining works which led to heavy financial loss to the Government and in order to compensate such loss, the Government has taken such decision to cover up it through the dead rent. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the relevant documents available on record. The issue involved in this case is about the consideration of the decision of the State Government wherein rate of dead rent has been enhanced from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre so far as China Clay is concerned. The admitted fact herein is that the China Clay was a major mineral and subsequently, by virtue of a notification dated 10.02.2015 it has come under the category of minor mineral. Since the China Clay was under the coverage of major mineral, therefore, it was governed under the MMDR Act/Rules, 1957 and 1960 respectively, but after bringing the China Clay under the category of minor mineral, power has come to the State Government to deal with the issuance of license etc., and thereby, the applicability of the Rules framed by the State Government, i.e., Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 came into play. The State Government in exercise of power conferred under the said Act, came out with a notification dated 16.09.2019 whereby the dead rent of the China Clay has been enhanced from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre. The aforesaid enhancement of the rate of [6] dead rate has been questioned by the petitioners on the ground that the same is unreasonable and arbitrary. While, on the other hand, plea has been taken by the State of Jharkhand that the purpose of enhancement of the rate of dead rent is that, the licensees like the petitioners are not carrying out the mining works which led to heavy financial loss to the Government and in order to compensate such loss, the Government has taken such decision to cover it up through dead rent. 7. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned notification, deems it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, more particularly, judgment rendered in D. K. Trivedi & Sons and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 20. Paragraph-5, 68 & 75 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “5. On March 26, 1979, the Minister for Mines made a statement in the Legislative Assembly announcing the decision to implement from April 1, 1979, the new policy of dead rent framed by the government. According to the said statement, the policy was aimed at breaking the hold of big leaseholders of minor minerals who, by finding loopholes in the said Rules, had acquired leases for the same mineral in different districts and had established a monopoly in the market and had made a fortune by exploiting labourers and evading payment of royalty. According to the said statement, such leaseholders quarried just enough minerals and created artificial shortages in order to control the market and maintain high levels of profits, and some leaseholders had acquired control of areas far in excess of the capacity of their crushers and did not allow entry to other industrialists. He further stated that under the said Rules lessees of minor minerals had to pay royalty on the basis of monthly returns but as true monthly returns were not submitted, evasion to the extent of five to ten per cent was taking place in the payment of royalty. Pursuant to this policy decision the 1979 Notification was issued by the Government of Gujarat. By the 1979 Notification the Government of Gujarat made the Gujarat Minor Mineral (Amendment) Rules, 1979, with effect from April 1, 1979. By this amendment a new Rule 21-B was inserted in the said Rules, Rule 22 was amended, Chapter IV of the said Rules which dealt with grant of quarrying permits in respect of lands in which minerals belonged to the government was deleted, Form D was amended, Forms I, J and K were deleted, and Schedules I and II were substituted. By the substituted Schedule I, the rate of royalty on all minor minerals was specified as ten paise per metric tonne. By the substituted Schedule [7] II the rate of dead rent per hectare or part thereof in respect of quarry leases was enhanced to Rs 1200 in certain cases, Rs 1500 in some other cases, Rs 2000 in one case and Rs 3000 in the remaining cases. So far as quarry parwanas were concerned, the rate was specified as one-tenth of the rate for quarry leases per parwana. 68. By the 1979 Notification the Government of Gujarat made the Gujarat Minor Minerals (Amendment) Rules, 1979, which came into force with effect from April 1, 1979. The 1979 Notification inserted a new rule in the Gujarat Rules, namely, Rule 21-B. The said Rule 21- B is as follows: “21-B. Rate of dead rent.—The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under these rules shall pay yearly dead rent in respect of minor minerals specified in column I, for the areas mentioned in column 2, at the rates respectively specified against them in column 3 of Schedule II.” It further substituted in sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of Rule 22 the words “as may be specified from time to time” for the word “specified”. It further substituted in clause (2) of Part V of the Schedule to Form D appended to the Gujarat Rules the words “at the rate as may be specified from time to time” for the words “at the rate mentioned”. It also substituted Schedule I to the Gujarat Rules so as to reduce the rate of royalty on all minor minerals to ten paise per metric tonne. It also substituted Schedule II so as to enhance the rates of dead rent. In Sonbai case [ (21) 2 (1980) 2 Guj LR 530] the Gujarat High Court held the 1979 Notification to be void as being ultra vires Section 15 of the 1957 Act and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We have already discussed the correctness of that judgment and have held that under the rule-making power conferred upon them by Section 15(1), the State Governments can make rules charging dead rent as also can amend the rules to enhance the rates of dead rent so as to affect even subsisting leases and have pointed out that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Sonbai case is not correct. The reasons given by the Gujarat High Court for coming to the conclusion that the 1979 Notification violated Article 19(1)(g) were very much the same as prompted it to hold that the State Government could not enhance the rates of dead rent during the subsistence of a lease. Those reasons are erroneous. We do not find that the enhancement in the rates of dead rent made by the 1979 Notification amount to any unreasonable restrictions on the right of the holders of quarry leases to carry on their trade or business. The rates of dead rent specified in the 1979 Notification cannot be looked at in isolation but must be read in conjunction with the drastic reduction made in the rates of royalty and so read there is nothing unreasonable in them. We, therefore, hold that the 1979 Notification was valid in law and constitutional. The Gujarat High Court in Sonbai case [ (21) 2 (1980) 2 Guj LR 530] also held that the 1976 Notification was ultra vires Section 15 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution for the same reasons as in the case of the 1979 Notification. These reasons are not correct and cannot be sustained. We have, however, held that the 1976 Notification is invalid on an entirely different ground, namely, because it enhanced the rates of dead rent for the second time during the same period of four years. 75. It was contended that the rates of royalty specified in the 1981 Notification were so excessive and arbitrary as to be totally unreasonable and, therefore, the 1981 Notification violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution because it placed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the holders of quarry leases to carry on their trade and business. We find no substance in this [8] contention. It is true that by the 1981 Notification the rates of royalty have been enhanced manifold. During the particular period of four years, namely, the fourth period commencing on April 1, 1978, and ending on March 31, 1982, the rates of royalty had not been enhanced but drastically reduced by the 1979 Notification while the rates of dead rent had been considerably enhanced by the 1979 Notification. The enhancement in the rates of royalty made by the 1981 Notification was, therefore, the first enhancement made during the fourth period of four years. If the rates of royalty so enhanced are looked at alone, it would appear that they are unreasonable, but when we take into account the fact that dead rent is not payable after the coming into force of the 1981 Notification, the position is completely altered and it cannot be said that enhancement in the rates of royalty is unreasonable. The fallacy in the above contention lies in comparing the rates of royalty specified in the 1981 Notification with the uniform rate of ten paise per metric tonne specified in the 1979 Notification. If we compare the rates of royalty specified in the 1981 Notification with those specified in the 1974 Notification and we bear in mind that under the 1974 Notification dead rent was also payable under the 1974 Notification, we find that in some cases the rates of royalty are reduced, for example, the rate of royalty in respect of dressed and carved marble and slabs of marble was Rs 55 per metric tonne in the 1974 Notification while under the 1981 Notification blocks and slabs of marble above 15 cms in size is only Rs 35 per metric tonne. Though by the 1981 Notification the rates of royalty in respect of certain minor minerals have been enhanced, by no stretch of imagination can such enhancement be said to be excessive or unreasonable when compared with the rates of royalty specified in the 1974 Notification. This contention must, therefore, be rejected. Further, in Quarry Owners’ Association vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 655 at paragraph-59 it has been held which reads as hereunder: 59. Next, coming to the quantum of imposition, on the facts of this case, the imposition of royalty/dead rent could be said to be arbitrary or excessive by the State Government. We do not find any material placed by the appellants in the writ petition to come to such a conclusion. Though by proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 it is open for the State Government to revise the royalty every three years but the history shows it has not done so. Since 1975 the State Government has increased royalty only four times and there is no increase since 28-9-1994 despite lapse of six years, in other words, raising royalty only four times during 25 years. Even in the case of D.K. Trivedi [1986 Supp SCC 20] as we have recorded above a large percentage of increase in royalty has been made yet it was not struck down on that account. Further, in Raojibhai Jivabhai Patel and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 744 at paragraph-9 it has been laid down which reads as hereunder: 9. We do not also find much substance in the contention that the levy in question is unreasonably heavy and has been imposed in an arbitrary manner. The burden of establishing that the levy is [9] unreasonably heavy, is on the petitioners. It is urged that in the other States the royalty is being levied at the rate of Re 1 per metric tonne of black trap and hard murrum and Rs 7 levied in the notification is excessive. The fact that in other States the royalty is fixed at Re 1 is not by itself sufficient to hold that Rs 7 per metric tonne is unreasonably high rate of royalty. In Trivedi case [1986 Supp SCC 20 : (1986) 1 SCR 479] this Court had upheld the levy of Rs 4 per metric tonne which had been fixed in 1981 and in 1985 it was increased to Rs 7. Having regard to the depreciation in the value of the rupee and the increase in the cost of administration of the State, which is ever increasing, as a welfare State we cannot say that Rs 7 is an unreasonably high rate. We have taken this view after going through the observations made by this Court in Trivedi case [1986 Supp SCC 20 : (1986) 1 SCR 479] at p. 544 where this Court has observed that where a statute confers discretionary powers upon the executive or an administrative authority, the validity or constitutionality of such power cannot be judged on the assumption that the executive or such authority will act in an arbitrary manner in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it. If the executive or the administrative authority acts in an arbitrary manner, its action would be bad in law and liable to be struck down by the courts but the possibility of abuse of power or arbitrary exercise of power cannot invalidate the statute conferring the power or the power which has been conferred by it. We do not find that the levy is arbitrarily imposed. 8. Thus, it is evident from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove that the enhancement of dead rent by the State Government will come under the fold of judicial review only in the case if enhancement is excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and offends the doctrine of proportionality and would analyse as to whether the State Government has failed to bring on record any justification far less any empirical research and data in support of his decision. This Court has considered the factual aspect basing upon the aforesaid proposition in order to come to a conclusion as to whether the decision of the State Government in enhancing the dead rent from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre will come under the fold of arbitrariness or unreasonableness as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D. K. Trivedi & Sons and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra) and for scrutinizing the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court, vide order dated 23.06.2021 had called upon the decision [10] of the State authority as would appear from the said order which reads as hereunder: “Heard the parties. Though counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, however the learned counsel appearing for the State has put reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in D.K. Trivedi and Sons Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1986 (Supp.) SCC 20, wherein in paragraph 5 it is stated that in that case the Minister of Mines made a statement in the Legislative Assembly announcing the decision to implement the new policy for enhancement of dead-rent framed by the Government and the reasons were disclosed on the floor of the Assembly as to why such enhancement is being made. Let the State produce copy of similar statement, if any, given by the Minister of Mines of this State in the Assembly as has been noted down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on record. if the statement is not made, then it should come in affidavit that the statement has not been made. In that case, let the original file in sealed cover be produced before us which contains the reasons for such enhancement in the dead-rent as has been done in the present case, i.e., from Rs.2000/- per hectare when it was a “major mineral” to Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare immediately after it became a “minor mineral” in one stroke so that its reasonableness or arbitrariness be tested by this Court. Put up this case on 07.07.2021.” In pursuance to the aforesaid order, affidavits were filed on 28.07.2021 wherein two documents have been annexed as Annexure-A & B. Annexure-A pertains to minutes of meeting dated 22.02.2019 convened under the Chairmanship of the Development Commissioner while Annexure-B is the decision of the Cabinet of enhancement of the dead rent from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre which is based upon the report of the committee. 9. It is evident from the report of the committee appended as Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit that consideration has been made only to the effect that the dead rent of all the minerals which come under the fold of minor mineral is required to be enhanced. For ready reference the decision of the committee is quoted hereinbelow: [11] fodkl vk;qDr dh v/;{krk esa fnukad&22-02-2019 dks >kj[k.M y?kq [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ esa fu/kkZfjr LokfeLo dh njksa esa iqujh{k.k gsrq xfBr lfefr dh cSBd dh dk;ZokghA mifLFkfr%&layXu lwph ds vuqlkjA foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&356] fnukad&30-08-2018 }kjk >kj;[k.M y?kq [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ esa fu/kkZfjr LokfeLo dh njksa esa c<+ksjh gsrq lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gSA 2- vkt fnukad&22-02-2019 dks lfefr dh cSBd esa vf/klwpuk la[;k&278] fnukad 29-04-2015 }kjk y?kq [kfutksa ds fy, vf/klwfpr njksa esa iqujh{k.k gsrq fopkj fd;k x;kA lfefr ds }kjk jkT; ds lehioÙkhZ jkT;ksa ;Fkk NÙkhlx<+] mM+hlk] mÙkjizns'k esa Hkh y?kq [kfutksa ds izHkkoh njksa dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA [kku ,oa [kfut ¼fodkl ,oa fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk&9 ¼3½ ds vUrxZr 03 o’kksZ ds ckn [kfut LokfeLo dh nj@fu;r yxku dh nj dks iqujhf{kr fd, tkus dk izko/kku gSA lfefr }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkar vf/klwpuk la[;k&278] fnukad 29-04-2015 ds vuqlwph&1] vuqlwph&2] vuqlwph&2 ¼d½ ,oa vuqlwph&3 esa layXu rkfydk ds vuq:i [kfutksa dh njksa esa iqujh{k.k djus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA 3- lfefr ds }kjk fopkjksijkar ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vuqlwph&2 ds Øekad&2 ds [kfutksa ;Fkk Bolder, Gravel, Shingle which is used for making chips dh nj 250@&:i;k izfr ?ku ehVj j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA 4- vuqlwph&1 esa y?kq [kfut esa fu;r yxku ds nj ds lanHkZ esa lE;d fopkjksijkar ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd oSls [kfut] tks Hkkjr ljdkj ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&333] fnukad&10-02-2015 ds }kjk y?kq [kfut ds :i esa oxhZd`r fd, x, gS ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&1653] fnukad 06-09-2016 }kjk vuqlwph&2 ¼d½ esa j[ks x;s gS] dk fu;r yxku 40000@&¼pkyhl gtkj½ :i;s izfr ,dM+ izfr o’kZ j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh tk, ,oa vU; vuqlwph&2 ds y?kq [kfut dk fu;r yxku dk nj 30000@&¼rhl gtkj½ :i;s izfr ,dM+ izfr o’kZ j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA rnuqlkj vuqlwph&1 ds njksa dks nks Hkkxksa esa foHkDr djrs gq, fu;r yxku dk nj vuq'kaflr fd;k tkrk gSA 5- lfefr }kjk vuqlwph&2 ds Øekad&19 esa lk/kkj.k feÍh dk nj 20@&:i;s izfr ?kuehVj j[kus dh Hkh vuq'kalk dh x;hA lkFk gh vuqlwph&3 ds [kfutksa dh nj esa 20 izfr'kr ds o`f) djrs gq, caxyk HkÍk dh nj dk iqujh{k.k ugha djus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA 6- lfefr ds }kjk vU; lHkh vuqlwph ;Fkk vuqlwph&2 ,oa vuqlwph&2¼d½ ds njksa esa lkekU;r 25 izfr'kr dh o`f) dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gS ,oa ftu [kfutksa dk Ad- valorem nj fu/kkZfjr gS] mu ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk cnyko dh vko';drk ugha gSA la'kksf/kr] vuq'kaflr fu;r yxku ,oa LokfeLo dh nj dk fooj.kh vuqlwph&1 vuqlwph&2 ,oa vuqlwph&3 layXu gSA Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- funs'kd [kku lfpo] lfpo [kku funs'kky; okf.kT;dj foHkkx] jktLo] fuca/ku ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj >kj[k.M] jk¡phA foHkkx] >kj[k.M] jk¡phA Sd/- Sd/- lfpo fodkl vk;qDr [kku ,oa HkwrRo >kj[k.MA foHkkx >kj[k.M] jk¡phA [12] 10. The rate of dead rate has also been recommended by the committee enhancing it from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre so far as the mineral contained in Schedule-I is concerned. It is further evident from the decision of the Cabinet wherein as under paragraph-8 thereof, the rate which has been proposed by the committee has been directed to be implemented. For ready reference, the same is being quoted hereinbelow: izfr la[;k %& >kj[k.M ljdkj [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx eaf=ifj’kn ds vuqeksnukFkZ lays[k fo’k; %& >kj[k.M y?kq] [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr 2019 ds fu;e&29¼1½] 29¼5½ ,oa 30 ds vUrxZr Øe'k% vuqlwph&1] vuqlwph&2] vuqlwph&2d ,oa vuqlwph&3 esa vf/klwfpr LokfeLo@fu;r yxku dh njksa esa la'kks/ku ds laca/k esaA 1- >kj[k.M y?kq [kfut leuqnku ¼la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2015 ds izHkko ls xtV la[;k&278] fnukad 29-04-2015 }kjk y?kq [kfutksa ds lokfeLo dh njksa dks iqujhf{kr fd;k x;k FkkA [kku ,oa [kfut ¼fodkl ,oa fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 dh /kkjk&9¼3½ ds vUrxZr 03 o’kksZ ds ckn [kfut LokfeLo dh nj@fu;r yxku dh nj dks iqujhf{kr fd, tkus dk izko/kku gSA bl izdkj y?kq [kfut ds ekeys esa fnukad& 29-04-2018 dks 03 o’kZ iwjk gks pqdk gSA 2- foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&356] fnukad&30-08-2018 }kjk >kj[k.M y?kq [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ;Fkk ¼la'kksf/kr½ esa fu/kkZfjr LokfeLo dh njksa esa c<+ksrjh gsrq fodkl vk;qDr dh v/;{krk esa lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gSA 3- lfefr dh cSBd fnukad&22-02-2019 }kjk y?kq [kfutksa ds fy, vf/klwfpr njksa esa iqujh{k.k gsrq fopkj fd;k x;kA lfefr ds }kjk jkT; ds lhekorhZ jkT;ksa ;Fkk NÙkhlx<+] mM+hlk] mÙkj izns'k esa Hkh y?kq [kfut ds izHkkoh njksa dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA lfefr }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr vf/klwpuk la[;k&278] fnukad 29-04-2015 ds vuqlwph&1] vuqlwph&2] vuqlwph&2¼d½ ,oa vuqlwph&3 esa layXu rkfydk ds vuq:i [kfutksa ds njksa esa iqujh{k.k djus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA 4- lfefr }kjk vuqlwph&2 ds Øekad&2 ds [kfutksa ;Fkk Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which is used for making chips dh nj 250@&:i;k izfr ?ku ehVj j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA 5- vuqlwph&1 esa y?kq [kfut esa fu;r yxku ds nj ds lanHkZ esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd oSls [kfut] tks Hkkjr ljdkj ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&333] fnukad&10-02-2015 ds }kjk y?kq [kfut ds :i esa oxhZd`r fd, x, gS ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds vf/klwpuk la[;k&1653] fnukad&06-09-2016 }kjk vuqlwph&2¼d½ esa j[ks x;s gS] dk fu;r yxku 40000@&¼pkyhl gtkj½ :i;s izfr ,dM+ izfr o’kZ j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh tk, ,oa vU; vuqlwph&2 ds y?kq [kfut dk fu;r yxku dk nj 30000@&¼rhl gtkj½ :i;s izfr ,dM+ izfr o’kZ j[kus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA rnuqlkj vuqlwph&1 ds njksa dks 02 Hkkxksa esa foHkDr djrs gq, fu;r yxku dk nj vuq'kaflr gSA 6- lfefr }kjk vuqlwph&2 ds Øekad&19 esa l/kkj.k feV~Vh dk nj 20@&¼chl½ :i;s izfr ?ku ehVj j[kus dh vuq'kalk ,oa vuqlwph&3 ds [kfutksa dh nj esa 20 izfr'kr dh o`f) djrs gq, caxyk HkÍk dh nj dk iqujh{k.k ugha djus dh vuq'kalk dh x;hA [13] 7- lfefr ds }kjk vU; lHkh vuqlwph ;Fkk vuqlwph&2 ,oa vuqlwph&2¼d½ ds njksa esa lkekU;r% 25 izfr'kr dh o`f) dh vuq'kalk dh x;h ,oa ftu [kfutksa dk Ad- valorem nj fu/kkZfjr gS] ml ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dk cnyko dh vko';drk ugha gSA la'kksf/kr] vuq'kaflr fu;r yxku ,oa LokfeLo dh nj dh fooj.kh vuqlwph&1] vuqlwph&2] vuqlwph&2d ,oa vuqlwph&3 layXuA 8- mi;qZDr dafMdk&3 esa vafdr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa foHkkx dk izLrko gS fd ^^y?kq [kfut ds oÙkZeku izpfyr fu;r yxku ,oa LokfeLo dh nj esa la'kks/ku djrs gq, layXu fooj.kh vuqlwph&1] 2] 2 ¼d½ ,oa 3 esa izLrkfor njsa ykxw dh tk,A^^ 9- izLrko esa foÙk foHkkx dh lgefr izkIr gSA 10- vf/klwpuk izk:i ij fof/k foHkkx dh fof/k{kk izkIr gS] tks lays[k ds lkFk layXu gSA 11- izLrko ,oa lays[k esa ekuuh; foHkkxh; ¼eq[;½ ea=h dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA 12- lays[k dh dafMdk&8 esa eaf=ifj’kn dh Lohd`fr izkfFkZr gSA Sd/- ¼vcqcDdj flÌh[k ih0½ ljdkj ds lfpo >kj[k.M ljdkj [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkxA Kkikad %&[k0 fu0 ¼uhfr½&04@2018 2009@,e0] jk¡ph] fnukad 6@9@19 izfrfyfi %& bl lays[k dh vfrfjDr 35 ¼iSrhl½ fgUnh izfr;k¡ eaf=e.My lfpoky; ,oa leUo; foHkkx dks bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk vxzlkfjr dh tkrh gSa fd bls eaf=ifj’kn dh vkxkeh cSBd dh dk;kZoyh esa lfEefyr djus dh d`ik dh tk,A Sd/- ljdkj ds lfpo 11. It is evident from the decision of the Cabinet that the decision of the committee has ipso facto been implemented, therefore, the decision of the committee is required to be seen in pursuance to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D. K. Trivedi & Sons and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra) wherein it has been laid down that the enhancement of the dead rent can come under the fold of judicial review if the decision is unreasonable and arbitrary. This Court, therefore, deems it fit and proper to proceed in order to examine as to whether the decision of the State Government enhancing the quantum of dead rent from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre per year suffers from unreasonableness and arbitrariness or not? [14] 12. It is not in dispute that a decision will be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable if not based upon the cogent reason. Herein, the learned State counsel is arguing the case that it is due to the latches on the part of the licensee who are not carrying out the mining operations in the entire land which has been leased out due to which the State Government is suffering financial loss, therefore, the decision has been taken to compensate the Government through the dead rent. According to him, dead rent is the rent which is being procured from the licensee of the unused mining land. 13. This Court, in order to examine the reason assigned by the learned State counsel in support of aforesaid enhancement of dead rent, has considered the decision of the Cabinet which is based upon the decision of the Committee headed by the Development Commissioner of the State of Jharkhand but it has been found that no such reason has been assigned therein save and except the reason that the rate of dead rent of the minerals which have been converted from major mineral to minor mineral is required to be enhanced and accordingly, the recommendation which has been made by the Committee has been accepted. The question now is that when the reason which has not been discussed by the Committee basis upon which the Cabinet has taken a decision, can the State Government be allowed to defend the aforesaid enhancement by taking the stand in the counter affidavit which is not available before the Cabinet or has not been discussed by the Committee. [15] This Court, for answering the said issue, deems it fit and proper to refer the settled position of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein it has been laid down that which is not in the order the same cannot be allowed to be improved by way of an affidavit. Paragraph-8 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: ―Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of 3 explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.‖ Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 14. It is not in dispute that an order without any reason or not based upon the valid reason will be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. In the given facts of this case, however, the enhancement which is impugned has been tried to be justified by taking stand in the counter affidavit that it is due to the latches committed on the part of one or the other licensees in not carrying out the mining work in the entire leased area, therefore, the State is put in financial loss but the discussion made by the Cabinet about such enhancement is based upon the decision of the Committee dated 22.02.2019 wherein no such ground was under consideration save and except the ground that the minerals which have been converted from major minerals to minor minerals, their dead rent is required to be [16] extended and thereby, recommendation for enhancement of dead rent has been made. This Court, therefore, deems it fit and proper to consider the meaning of unreasonableness and arbitrariness and it is settled that an order will be said to be unreasonable and suffer from vice of arbitrariness in absence of any reason or valid reason as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr., (1976) 2 SCC 981 wherein at paragraph-6 it has been laid down which reads as hereunder: 6. Before we part with this appeal, we must express our regret at the manner in which the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India disposed of the proceedings before them. It is incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding differential duty were quasi- judicial proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd. [C. A. No. 245 of 1970, decided on December 17, 1975] . But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated December 8, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated June 4, 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by a administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in [17] support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi- judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Government of India also failed to give any reasons in support of its order rejecting the revision application. But we may presume that in rejecting the revision application, it adopted the same reason which prevailed with the Collector. The reason given by the Collector was, as already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and it would, therefore, have been better if the Government of India had given proper and adequate reasons dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants while rejecting the revision application. We hope and trust that in future the customs authorities will be more careful in adjudicating upon the proceedings which come before them and pass properly reasoned orders, so that those who are affected by such orders are assured that their case has received proper consideration at the hands of the Customs Authorities and the validity of the adjudication made by the Customs Authorities can also be satisfactorily tested in a superior tribunal or court. In fact, it would be desirable that in cases arising under customs and excise laws an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, is set up which would finally dispose of appeals and revision applications under these laws instead of leaving the determination of such appeals and revision applications to the Government of India. An independent quasi- judicial tribunal would definitely inspire greater confidence in the public mind. Further, in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 wherein at paragraph-39 it has been laid down which reads as hereunder: 39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair play in action”. As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. [18] The public interest underly-ing such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case. Further, in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jadgish Sharan Vardhney and Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 240, wherein at paragraph-8 it has been laid down which reads as hereunder: 8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669] , is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation. 15. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law that an order would be said to suffer from unreasonableness and arbitrariness where there is lack of reason or the reason which has been stated in the counter affidavit before the Court of Law is absent before the decision making authority. This Court has already considered the judgment rendered in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. (supra) wherein it has been laid down that the reason which is not referred in the order cannot be allowed to be developed by assigning reason by way of affidavit. Here, in the given facts of the case, the stand has been taken by the State authority that the State is suffering due to non- mining of the leased mining area, therefore, such decision has been taken to compensate such loss by virtue of imposing dead rent and keeping that reason, the State Government has come out with a notification dated 16.09.2019 enhancing the quantum of dead rent [19] from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre/ per year so far as it relates to China Clay, which is the subject matter of the lis herein. But we, after going across the decision of the Cabinet and the minutes of meeting basis upon which the Cabinet has accepted the recommendation, which we called by virtue of an order passed by this Court and in pursuance thereof, both the documents, i.e., minutes of meeting dated 22.02.2019 convened under the Chairmanship of the Development Commissioner and the decision of the Cabinet have been appended to the counter affidavit but we have found therefrom that no reason which has been assigned in the counter affidavit is available save and except the reason to the effect that the minerals which has been brought into the fold of minor minerals from major minerals, dead rent is required to be enhanced and in view thereof, the recommendation which has been made by the committee has been accepted. 16. This Court is in support of the contention of the learned State counsel that there is no embargo in enhancing the dead rent by the State Government but as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D. K. Trivedi & Sons and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra) wherein the power of judicial review can well be invoked by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if such decision suffers from unreasonableness and arbitrariness. This Court, has already delved upon after considering the judgment rendered in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr. (supra); S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 [20] (supra) and Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Jadgish Sharan Vardhney and Ors., wherefrom it is evident that the order will be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary which is not based upon cogent reason or the reason which has been taken in the counter affidavit is not available in the original order. 17. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, is not hesitant in holding that the decision of the State authority in enhancing the dead rent from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre/ per year so far as it relates to China Clay, the same suffers from the principle of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. In view thereof, the same is quashed and set aside. 18. This Court is conscious of the fact that the State Government has got power to enhance the dead rent but, is only interfering on the ground that no cogent reason has been reflected based upon the study of the issue, since the decision has been taken, therefore, deems it fit and proper to remit the matter before the State Government/competent authority to take a fresh decision on the issue. 19. Accordingly, the State Government/competent authority is directed to take a fresh decision within a specific period preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order on the basis of the observations made hereinabove. 20. In the result, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. [21] 21. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I agree (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh/A.F.R. "