They raise for companysideration the question regarding the companytinued operation of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act Orissa Act 27 of 1952 and the companytinued exigibility of the fees leviable from mine owners under the said enactment.
When a demand was made for the sum the respondent filed petition 142 of 1960 before the High Court impugning the legality of the demand and claimed the reliefs we have set out earlier.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. These two appeals which are against a companymon judgment of the High Court of Orissa have been filed pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Art.
The learned judges allowed the Writ Petition and issued directions to the second appellant in terms of the prayer in the petition.
As the grounds on which the said demand of the fees was impugned raised substantial questions touching the interpretation of the Constitution the appellants applied to the Court for a certificate of fitness under Art.
Each of the respondents in ,the two appeals filed a petition before the High Court of Orissa under Art.
226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the two appellants The State of Orissa and the Administrator, Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund, from applying the provisions of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act Orissa Act 27 of 1952 to the respective respondents and to direct the two appellants to cancel the numberices of demand requiring the petitioners to Pay the fees assessed under the said Act issued by the second appellant and for an injuction etc.
132 1 and 2 and this having been granted, the appeals are number before us.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 18, 1961, of the Orissa High Court in O. J. Cs.
C. Setalvad, Ramadeb Chaudhuri, B. C. Sen, S. C. Sen, S. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vhora for the respondent in C. A. No.
561 of 1962 .
restraining them from taking any steps in pursuance of the said numberice of demand.
There is number any material difference between the facts of the two cases and so it would be sufficient if we refer only to those in Civil Appeal 561 of 1962.
The facts giving rise to these petitions were briefly these.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
The res pondent Tulloch Co. Private Ltd. a companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, works a manganese mine in the State of Orissa under a lease granted by that State under the provision of the Mines Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1948 Central Act 53 of 1948 , and the rules made thereunder.
While the respondent was.
The necessary steps for bringing these provisions into operation were taken by the State Government who thereafter made demands on the respondent on August 1, 1960 for the payment of the said fees.
thus working these mines, the State Legislature of Orissa passed an Act called the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act 1952 which for shortness we shall refer to as the Orissa Act where under certain areas were companystituted as mining areas and under the powers Conferred under that enactment the State Government was empowered to levy a fee on a percentage of the value of the mined ore at the pits mouth, the companylections being intended for the development of the mining areas in the State.
561 and 562 of 1962.
August 16, 1963.
562 of 1962 .
Narsaraju, Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Ramdas, R. N. Sachthey and P. D. Menon, for the appellants in both the appeals .
Ranadeb Chaudhuri, B. C. Sen, S. C. Sen, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent in C. A. NO.
The present appeal is companycerned with the fees which became due for the period July, 1957 to March 1958.
142 and 144 of 1960.
Ram Reddy and R. Thiagarajan, for the Intervener.
