Letters Patent Appeal No.824 OF 2002 ***** Against the order dated 17.7.2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4911 of 2002. ***** 1. Parvati Devi, W/o Late Brij Bihari, resident of Village- Karwandia, P.S. Sasaram Moffasil, District Rohtas (Sasaram). 2. M/S Sri Mengal Mineral Corporation through its Partner Indrawati Devi, W/O Fenindra Prasad Singh, resident of quarter No.109 Anuraghpuri Colony, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya. 3. Gopal Narayan Singh, S/O Deo Narayan Singh, R/O village- Jamuhar, P.S. Dehri, District- Rohtas. 4. Parsuram Singh, S/O Jamuna Pd. Singh, R/O Village- Jamuhar, P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas. 5. Vijay Kumar Singh, S/o Rajendra Pd. Singh, R/O village- Karwandia, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas. 6. Arvind Kumar Singh, S/O Gouri Shankar Singh, R/O Mohalla- Company Sarai, Rauza Road, P.S. Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 7. Baijnath Singh, S/o Purnmashi Singh, R/O Village- Kachanpur, Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 8. Arvind Kumar Singh, S/O Kapil Mani Singh, R/O Mohalla- New Area, P.S. Sasaram, District- Rohtas. ..... Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary –cum- Commissioner, Mines and Geology Deptt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector Cum- District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram. 4. The District Mining Officer, Sasaram. 5. The Assistant District Mining Officer, Sasaram. 6. The Special Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna. .... Respondents. ***** For the Appellants: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Special P.P. (Mines) ****** 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ***** S K Katriar, J. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the eight petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.4911 of 2002 (Parvati Devi and others Vs. State of Bihar and others), and are aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2002, whereby the writ petition along with three other writ petitions (not before us) have been dismissed. This appeal is directed against the demand notices dated 13.2.2002, and 12.11.2001 (Annexure 2 series to the writ petition), whereby the action of the respondent authorities to realise royalty at a higher rate has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The demand notices as contained in Annexure 2 series have been issued to the appellants requiring them to pay the amount of royalty mentioned therein. The same does not mention the rate at which royalty is sought to be realised, but the writ petition does state that it has been calculated at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic metre up to 31.12.2001. All the eight writ petitioners (appellants herein) present 3 identical case except with respect to variation of the dates of the lease agreement inter-parties entered into by way of separate lease-deeds indicated hereinbelow to win sand-stone from different areas in the district of Rohtas under the provisions of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules) made in exercise of powers conferred under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,1957. Following is a brief description of Party position Period of lease (i) Appellant no.1: 6.1.2000 to 5.1.2010 (ii) Appellant no.2: 1.3.1993 to 28.2.2003 (iii) Appellant no.3: (a) 2.7.1994 to 1.7.2004 (b) 17.5.2000 to 16.5.2010 (Appellant no.3 was holder of two lease deeds) (iv) Appellant no.4: 21.5.1993 to 20.5.2003 (v) Appellant no.5: 27.9.1993 to 26.9.2003 (vi) Appellant no.6 23.3.2000 to 22.3.2010 (It may be clarified that this lease deed was initially in favour of M/S Ratandeo Construction, who transferred it to appellant no.6 for the remainder of the period) (vii) Appellant no.7: 2.7.1994 to 1.7.2004 (viii)Appellant no.8: 2.7.1994 to 1.7.2004 (The deed was originally in favour of a different 4 person, namely, Mr. Baldeo Raj Tahlani, who transferred the same to respondent nos.7 and 8, on 13.9.2000, for the remainder of the period). 2.1) According to Rule 26(1) (b) of the Rules, the lessee shall be charged royalty at the rates specified in Schedule-II. The rates have been revised from time to time which have been recapitulated by the learned Single Judge and are reproduced hereinbelow: Schedule II: under S.O. 1054: dated 3.8.1977: --------------- Sr. No. --- Name of Minerals ------------------ Rate per cubic metre (in Rupees) ------------ 1. Building stones including stone chips, boulder, road metal and ballast. 3.00 16. Quartzite and sandstone when used for purposes of building or for making road metal and house hold utensils. 2.50 Schedule II: under S.O.398. dated 17.8.1991 --------------- Sr. No. --- 1. Name of Minerals ----------------- Building stone including stone chips, boulder, road metal and ballast. Rate per cubic metre (in Rupees) ---------- 12.00 16. Quartzite and sandstone when used for purposes of building or for making road metal and house 10.50. 5 hold utensils. Schedule II: under notification, dated 29.8.1994 --------------- Sr. No. --- Name of Minerals ----------------- Rate per cubic meter (in rupees) ---------- 1 Gitti (stone chips), metal (boulder), Sadak Banane Ka Paththar (road metal), Gitti aur Ballast Aadi Ka Nirman Paththar. 25.00 16. Bhawan Nirman Ke Prayojnarth Ya Sadak Banane Ke Kaam Main Laya Janewala Quartzite Aur Balua Paththar 20.00 The relevant entries in Schedule II to the Rules after being amended by the notification, dated 24.3.2001 are as follows: Sr.No. ------ Name of Minerals ----------------- Rate per cubic metre (in rupees) ----------- 1. Boulder, Gravel, Shingle. 50.00 2. Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which is used for making chips. 100.00 9. Quartzite and sandstone when used for purposes of building or for making road metal and household utensils. 40.00 3. Before the impugned demand notices were issued, the appellants were paying royalty at the rates stated in the aforesaid notification dated 24.3.2001, namely, at the rate of Rs.40/- per cubic 6 metre. The appellants have admittedly taken lease for mining of sand-stone which expression has continued in all the notifications extracted hereinabove with the only deviation that the Hindi nomenclature “cyqvk iRFkj“ is mentioned in the aforesaid notification dated 29.8.1994. The appellants have been paying and are willing to pay so long the aforesaid notification dated 24.3.2001 subsists, at the rate of Rs.40/- per cubic metre. The appellants raise the grievance, as they did in the writ proceedings, that the impugned demand notices (Annexure-2 series) have been calculated at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic metre, whereas they are liable to pay at the rate of Rs.40/- per cubic metre. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the appellants submits that sand-stone cannot be included in serial no.2 of the aforesaid notification dated 24.3.2001, because the same is a distinct item in serial no.9 of the aforesaid notification. In his submission, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in including it in serial no.2. 5. The learned Government Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the same is fit to be upheld. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the 7 parties. It is evident from the series of notifications replacing the rates of royalty from time to time that sand-stone has consistently been shown as a distinct item, the royalty of which has to be charged at the rate specified against that item. It appears from a perusal of the impugned judgment that there was perhaps a report of the Inspection Committee dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-6), and is headed as follows: “ftyk jksgrkl es ik;s tkus okys y?kq [kfutksa ds LokfeRo fu/kkZj.k gsrq xfBr tkWap ny&II dk fujh{k.k izfrosnu@“ It is evident that this is an inspection note, and not even a complete report of the Expert Committee, let alone having received the approval and sanction of the State Government. The respondent authorities have not brought to our notice the final order of the State Government accepting the recommendations, let alone the same being notified by a notification. In other words, the last notification brought to our notice is of 24.3.2001, reproduced hereinabove, and is applicable in the cases of appellants till such time the same is replaced by another valid notification of the State Government, prescribing new rates of royalty. In other words, no notification subsequent to 24.3.2001 has been brought to our notice. 7. As stated hereinabove, “sand-stone” is a distinct item mentioned at serial no.9 of the 8 notification dated 24.3.2001, and the rate prescribed in serial no.9 shall be applicable in the present case. 8. The learned Single Judge has analysed the inspection report (Annexure-6), considered and applied geological theories, and has come to the conclusion that „sand-stone‟ being quarried in the district of Rohtas is capable of being broken into chips, and may be covered by item no.2 of the aforesaid notification dated 24.3.2001. We respectfully disagree with the approach of the learned Single Judge. This is the function of the State Government assisted by report of an Expert Committee. The position may have been different had the State Government accepted the report of the Expert Committee and amended Schedule II, in which case it was open to the learned Single Judge to interpret Schedule II in case of doubt or difficulty. In that view of the matter, sand-stone is distinctly covered by serial no.9 of the aforesaid notification dated 24.3.2001, so long it subsists and is not altered in accordance with law. 9. We feel very unhappy at the mode and manner of issuance of the demand notices (Annexure-2 series). The same does not stipulate the rate at which royalty has been calculated which was all the more imperative in the present case because higher rate has been 9 applied. We would expect the authorities to include in every demand notice the rate at which the royalty is being demanded, and reasonable details of calculation. We are informed at the Bar that the impugned notice of demand covering the period till 31.12.2001, has already been satisfied and in fact royalty at the rate of Rs.100/- per cubic metre is being paid till date. 10 In the result, the impugned notices of demand dated 13.2.2002 and 12.11.2001 (Annexure-2 series), are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to issue fresh demand notices at the rate of Rs.40/- per cubic metre covering the lease period so long the notification dated 24.3.2001 subsists. The excess amount realised by the State Government shall be adjusted with respect to those of the appellants whose lease-deeds are still subsisting, and shall be refunded to the remaining appellants whose lease-deeds have already expired. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of three months from today. This appeal is accordingly allowed. (S K Katriar, J.) Jyoti Saran, J. I agree. (Jyoti Saran, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 24th day of August, 2009. S.K.Pathak/ (N.A.F.R.)