ORDER
1. The petitioner, Tirunelveli District Clay Products Manufacturers Association, prays for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the Seigniorage fee prescribed under Appendix-II of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules Per Cart load of upto 10 cubic feet would mean
10 cubic feet of unquarried earth equivalent to 21-1/2 cubic feet of quarried Minerals which can be converted into 7 cart loads or one lorry load.
2. According to the petitioner, the members of the Petitioner Association are manufacturers of Bricks and Tiles and they depend on the clay/silt/earth from Government Lands and Private lands for their livelihood. The petitioner asserts that seven cart loads will be equivalent to one Lorry load (a-1/2 Units) approximately and therefore the petitioner and its members are entitled to remove 21-1/2 cubic feet of mineral. If one lorry of mineral (150 cubic feet) is lifted, the petitioners are liable to pay seigniorage fee for seven cart loads. If ten cubic fee of land is quarried on the ground it will fill up a cart of 21-1/2 cubic feet of mineral and the levy of seigniorage fee for earth and clay increased from 15 paise per cart load to 45 paise per cart load in the G.O.dated 2.3.1988 and from 45 paise per cart load to Rs.2.25 paise per cart load in the G.O.dated 4.8.1992 is illegal.
3. The petitioner asserts that excavation of cart load upto 10 cubic feet of mineral from ground level alone is liable to be levied, which would mean the petitioner would be entitled to remove 21-1/2 cubic feet of mineral. It is contended that if one cart load is taken as ten cubic feet, the members are punished that on account of the wrong calculation of one cart load as ten cubic feet, instead of 21-1/2 cubic feet and the increase of rate to Rs.2.25 per cart load also works hardship and it is arbitrary. If one lorry load is adopted as 15 cart loads, the seigniorage fees at the present rate of Rs.2.25 per cart load will amount to Rs.33.75 and such an increase is unjustifiable besides being arbitrary.
4. Mr.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner though contended that the levy is illegal at the first instance, It was nextly contended by him that the rate of levy or the quantum of mineral on which the levy has been made is wrongly adopted by the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the expression “load not exceeding ten cubic feet” would mean ten cubic feet of natural ground level, which had been excavated from the earth or mineral is removed and it is not a cart load which would be the basis of levy of seigniorage fee and such levy is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
5. In W.P.No.13308 etc. of 1992, the increase of seigniorage fee, which was the subject matter of challenge had been upheld by P. Shanmugham, J. and hence Mr.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument with respect to the increase in rate of seigniorage fee.
6. As regards the quantum of mineral and the rate of levy it is contended that the levy cannot be estimated or assessed per cart load upto 10 cubic feet, but it should be actually ten cubic feet of earth in natural
groundlevelwhich excavated and the contents of the earth which form part of ten cubic feet of ground level earth and therefore levy should not be on the basis of the cart load or on the basis of cart load of the size of ten cubic feet and it should be on the basis of ten cubic feet of natural ground level earth.
7. It is fairly admitted that ten cubic feet of on natural ground level if excavated, it would have excavated earth or mineral of 21-1/2 cubic feet according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In other words it would be double the quantum of cart load of ten cubic feet which is the basis or rate of levy i.e.,cart load of ten cubic feet.
8. Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 provides for levy of seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever is more and area assessment at such rates as may be specified from time to time in Appendix II to the said rules in respect of minor and minerals exploited by quarrying. Rule 24 reads thus:-
“24. Seigniorage fee, dead rent and area assessment:- Minor Minerals exploited by quarrying shall be charged seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever is more and area assessment at such rates as may be specified from time to time in Appendix II to these rules. The area assessment shall be levied for the entire extent of the field under quarrying except in cases where either the area has been clearly specified in the lease or permit or the land under quarrying is limited to a surveyed sub division. ”
9. A reading of the rule 24 would show that seigniorage fee or the dead rent and area assessment may be levied at the rates specified from time to time in Appendix-11 to the said rules. The area assessment shall be levied for the entire extent of the field under quarrying except in cases where either the area has been clearly specified in the lease or permit or the land under quarrying is limited to a surveyed sub division. Appendix-11 prescribe the rate of levy of seigniorage fee. The rate of seigniorage fee is to be levied per cart load whose content has been fixed as “upto ten cubic feet.”
10. Thus it is the cart load which has to be taken as a measurement and such cart load shall not exceed ten cubic feet. It is the size of the cart which could transport ten cubic feet of minor mineral, which is the basis for levy. It is the capacity of the cart engaged for transportation which has to be taken into consideration and such capacity is to be measured by cart load whose size shall not exceed 10 cubic feet. The measurement in other words for the purpose of levy of seigniorage fee is by the size of the cart or its carrying capacity. A cart which could transport ten cubic feet of minor mineral is the rate based upon which fee is to be assessed and levied. On the contrary it is contended that the levy should be on the basis of 10
cubic feet of earth or mineral as lay on ground level and excavated from its natural condition.
11. As already pointed out, it is fairly conceded that excavation earth or mineral of ten cubic feet from ground level would contain 21 1/2 cubic feet which is more than two cart loads. Only on that basis of ten cubic feet of natural ground level as it exists according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, seigniorage fee should be fixed assessed and levied. When the measurement is by cart load, the ingenuous contention advanced on the part of the petitioner that the levy should be on ten cubic feet in ground level of earth cannot be countenanced. Ten cubic feet would mean 10 feet length x 1 (one) foot width x 1 (one) foot depth. If such a measurement of earth or mineral is to be removed from the ground level even according to the petitioner, the excavated mineral would be more than 21 1/2 of cubic feet. It would exceed two cart load, of ten cubic feet. Such a contention if accepted, it would enable the petitioner to defeat the very rate of levy imposed on cubical contents of transporting cart.
12. Being a levy, the provision has to be strictly construed. Appendix-11 entry refers to per cart load of upto 10 cubic feet. It is the contents of such a cart load which shall not exceed 10 cubic feet, which is the basis for the levy of seigniorage fee and it is not the ground level mineral or deposit of earth as it occurs is the basis for levy. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a reading of the statutory rule has to necessarily fail.
13. The expression “cart load upto 10 cubic feet” which is the basis or the measurement of levy admits one meaning only and the object being levy at a particular rate for particular quantum of mineral being transported. The expression “cart load upto 10 cubic feet” refers to the capacity of the loaded cart which is used for the purpose of transportation of the earth or mineral and it is not the ground level content of deposit or mineral of earth as- it exist in natural ground level. The question is one of rate of levy of seigniorage fee on the basis of cart load and not on the basis of its existing ground level or the deposit of earth within a space of ten cubic feet as it occurs in ground level.
14. The rule is clear and being a taxing provision, which levies a seigniorage fee it has to be construed strictly. Tax and fee being a imposition made by a State for raising revenue, such a provision imposing levy has to be construed strictly. The strict letter of the law has to be taken note of and the expression or words used are not ambiguous and it is not open to two interpretation and as such no question of giving benefit of interpretation arises on the facts of the case.
15. The words found in Appendix-II are clear, plain and unambiguous. The expression used in Appendix-11 is not susceptible to more than one meaning. It is also equally well settled that when the statutory provision gives a clear and such a plain meaning not being unambiguous, it has to be given effect to irrespective of consequences. As the language is plain and unambiguous and admits only one meaning, the construction placed on Appendix-II by Mr.Sridhar, learned counsel for petitioner, cannot be sustained at all. The statutory provision speaks for itself and it is not for the court to give a different meaning than the plain language of the rule which speaks for itself.
16. It is also well settled principles of interpretation of statutes if the words used are capable of one construction only, then it would not be open to the court to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. When the language is fairly and reasonably open to only one meaning, merely because according to the counsel for the petitioner it attracts more levy or inconvenience or hardship such interpretation which is sought to be suggested by the petitioner cannot be sustained and such interpretation is not permissible. The construction in no way lead to anomaly nor the said construction causes injustice nor it results in absurdity.
17. Hence the only contention put forward by Mr.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. This court holds that the levy of seigniorage fee on the basis of the cart load, whose capacity is upto ten cubic feet is in order. On the other hand the ingenuous attempt on the part of the petitioner to suggest that the levy should be on the basis of ten cubic feet of deposit as it occurs in natural ground level cannot be sustained at all.
18. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. It is made clear that in respect of the removal of mineral or earth or deposit so far made, seigniorage fee shall be levied strictly in terms of the Appendix-11 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Consequently, connected W.M.P is also dismissed. No costs.