High Court Kerala High Court

A.Karunan vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.Karunan vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16563 of 2004(V)


1. A.KARUNAN, S/O. KELAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY,

3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :24/06/2009

 O R D E R
                      C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                 ....................................................................
                           W.P.(C) No.16563 of 2004
                 ....................................................................
                    Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009.

                                        JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the

respondents. Admittedly petitioner took on lease mining rights for mining

seashells from two sides in the sea shore. Mining right was granted on

condition of payment of royalty or dead rent in terms of the Kerala Minor

Mineral Concession Rules. Licence fee is paid and there is no dispute on

this. According to the petitioner, petitioner was paying royalty in

accordance with the Schedule and therefore, demand of dead rent is not

tenable. However, Government Pleader submitted that the provision in the

Minor Mineral Concession Rules is to collect dead rent, if royalty is less

than dead rent. In view of the provision contained in the said Rules based

on which mining lease is granted, petitioner is liable to pay dead rent in

excess of the royalty paid. There is no dispute with regard to the amount

involved. I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner

that dead rent which is higher than royalty is not payable by him. However,

since the matter is pending for long and the 12 year lease itself is over in

2003, petitioner is given facility to clear the liability with 50% accrued

2

interest provided balance amounts are paid in two instalments, first of which

will be paid on or before 10th August and the balance on or before 10th

September, 2009. If rate of interest is not prescribed, rate to be recovered

from petitioner should be 12% p.a. and since 50% is waived by this court,

petitioner need to pay only 6% p.a. for the whole period of default.

However, if payment due under both agreements is not made as above,

entire arrears can be recovered, that is, with full rate of interest or at 12%

per annum..

W.P. is disposed of as above.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms