IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2019 of 2004 KRISHNA KAMAL PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 3 .7.2008 The notification contained in annexure-1 which is S.O. 31 dated 24th March, 2001 under the purported exercise of power under section 15 of the Mines & Minerals ( Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 effecting certain changes in Schedule I and Schedule II of Rule 26 (1)(a) (b) respectively of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 is under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of this notification the dead rent with regard to certain mines and minerals have been enhanced which the petitioner challenges is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. His further contention is that it is a case of excessive delegation of power conferred upon the State which has been exercised without any reasonable nexus of the object sought to be achieved. Petitioner happens to be a lessee having obtained lease under Rule 21 of the Bihar Mines and Minerals Concession Rule, 1972 (whereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) on 7.10.1994. There has been no let or hindrance in carrying out the mining activity while the lease subsisted in his favour. Petitioner has been paying the dead rent etc. but somewhere towards the end of subsistence of the lease a demand was raised on the petitioner on 24.3.2004 demanding royalty to the extent of Rs. 17,07,700/-. - 2 - On the receipt of the said demand the petitioner has been compelled to challenge the notification contained in annexure-1 because in his opinion the demand is based on impugned notification which is arbitrary. Some of the primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has already taken note of in the earlier part of the order but the question is that if the validity of section 15 as well as the consequential rules have already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Quarry Owners’ Association Vrs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 655. The question arises whether the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the said exercise of power is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as also lacking reasonable nexus can be entertained? The answer is no. Even though the revision in the royalty and dead rent may look harsh and excessive having been revised three to four times the existing rate, since the legislature has conferred the necessary power by way of legislation, validity of which has been upheld, the petitioner cannot get any relief. The Court gets any impression that the challenge to annexure-1 is a ploy to avoid meeting the obligation of paying the dues outstanding against the petitioner after the lease has run its time. The challenge raised by the petitioner in the present writ application is fully met by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Quarry Owners’ Association vrs. - 3 - The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra). That being the legal position, the writ application of the petitioner lacks merit and the same is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)