- (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Collector, Lalitpur in Case No. 1979/30-Mines/2010 and the order dated 13.6.2014 passed by the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., Lucknow, Minor and Mineral Department. The dispute in this case is with regard to the royalty levied on the project of rehabilitation and upgrading of certain stretch of NH-26 to a four lane configuration in the State of U.P. The total length of the road is 49.305 Km. The project was awarded to M/s Gayatri Lalitpur Roadways Limited by National Highways Authority of India on Built Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. An engineering procurement and construction agreement was arrived at between M/s Gayatri Lalitpur Roadways Limited and National Highways Authority of India for the purpose. The value of the project was Rs. 253 crores. The work commenced from March, 2007 and continued till March, 2010. The petitioner was executing the work without any hindrance and deposited the royalty in advance for the minerals used in the work. For the purpose of securing and procuring the necessary minor minerals such as ordinary soil, boulders etc., the petitioners had identified the borrow area for execution of the road work. The petitioner had executed agreements for boulders etc. with the lease holders and for ordinary soil with the local villagers, the owners of the land in the borrow Area. The royalty in advance has been paid to the District Mining Officer, Collectorate, Lalitpur, U.P. for excavation and transportation of the minor minerals including ordinary soil.
(3.) It is stated in the writ petition that the location and specification of the minerals was intimated well in advance to respondent no. 4 i.e. the District Mining Officer, Collectorate, Lalitpur, U.P. who had physically inspected the borrow area as well as the road work but no objection has been made with regard to the specification of minerals at any point of time. For the work of base of the road, the soil was used and thereafter, it was covered with aggregates. The top of the road is also covered by bituminous layer. The execution work had continued since March, 2007 till 2010. After completion of 81% of the work, the respondents had started disputing the specification and quantity of the minerals used, on the ground that the petitioners had used morum for base of the road i.e. road work. A notice dated 20th April, 2010 was issued to the General Manager, Gayatri Project Limited. The respondents demanded Rs. 14,00,000/- for morum and Rs. 1,28,20,125/- for royalty towards soil during the period of 2007-2010. In the notice, the Collector has relied upon a report of the Committee constituted by him to evaluate and confirm the quantity of various minerals used in the construction work. Before issuing this notice, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 26th April, 2010 alongwith a brief statement of royalty paid by him on the soil used for construction of road. A detail chart of royalty paid for the Aggregates & G.S.B., the royalty paid on consumed sand was also submitted before the Collector. The original copies of the Challan (MM-11) which were in 35 boxes were sought to be submitted before the Collector but he had refused to receive it. An order dated 16.8.2010 was passed by the Collector computing a deficiency of royalty of Rs. 703.95 lacs and five times penalty on the said amount, which comes to Rs. 3519.75 lacs as cost of the material.;