C.W.P No. 9473 of 1990 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : November 29, 2010 1. C.W.P No. 9473 of 1990 M/S Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal vs The State of Punjab & another 2. C.W.P No. 13545 of 1990 M/S Punjab Brick Kiln Co. vs The State of Punjab & others 3. C.W.P No. 15250 of 1990 M/S Jagdish BKO vs The State of Punjab & others 4. C.W.P No. 16581 of 1990 M/S Palta Gram Udyog Samiti,BKO vs The State of Punjab & others 5. C.W.P No. 16582 of 1990 M/S Palta Brothers, BKO vs The State of Punjab & others 6. C.W.P No. 16583 of 1990 M/S Nagpal Trading Co. vs The State of Punjab & others 7. C.W.P No. 6863 of 1991 M/S Girdhari Lal Balwant Singh vs The State of Punjab & others *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the C.W.P No. 9473 of 1990 ::2:: judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 9473, 13545, 15250, 16581, 16582, 16583 of 1990 and 6863 of 1991, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Facts are being taken from CWP No.9473 of 1990. The dispute in this case relates to the claim of royalty demanded by the State of Punjab from brick kiln owners. On 23.11.2010, the following order was passed :- “ Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. M/S Vishkarma and Co. etc., 1993 AIR SCW 824. Counsel for the respondents prays for a short adjournment to go through the same and make submissions. Adjourned to 25.11.2010.” Counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that these petitions have to be allowed, in the same terms as in State of Punjab's case (supra), since it was only in 1994 that an Act was enacted viz Punjab Minor Mineral (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1994 and that prior thereto the State Government could not demand royalty from brick kiln owners. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab's case (supra). No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 29, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 9473 of 1990 ::3::