CWP No. 1013/2006 9.4.2009: Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General for Respondents No.1 and 2. It has been admitted by the respondent-State that proforma respondent No.3 by virtue of Chapter-III of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 was granted lease in question. The lease was executed on 17.2.2005. The respondent- State on the basis of clause 13 of lease deed had been raising demand for the collection of royalty. The precise case of Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua is that the lease has been granted to proforma respondent No.3 under Chapter-III of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 and her clients are not liable to pay any royalty. The respondents-State has admitted that the lease deed was granted in favour of proforma respondent No.3 under Chapter-III of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971. The question raised in this petition is no more res integra in view of the definitive law down by a Division Bench of this Court in Kalyan Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Latest HLJ 2006 (1) 195. Mr. R.K. Sharma, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the State has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench in Kalyan Singh’s case (supra), however, he has admitted that the operation of the judgment has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances on the basis of the definitive law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Kalyan Singh’s (supra) case, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are restrained from raising demand from the petitioner on the basis of clauses 1,2,3 and 13 of Part-III and clause 18 of Part-IV of the lease deed i.e. Annexure P-2. The action of the respondents of collecting the royalty from the petitioner till date is also declared null and void. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), April 9, 2009 Judge. *Awasthi*