SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1802/2004 Date of Order :: 11-02-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. ASOPA Mr.S.K.Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Sharma, Dy.G.A. With the consent of the parties, the case was heard finally. Heard the counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the inclusion of words “polish and cut slabs” in Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (for short as “Rules of 1986”). It has been prayed in the writ petition that it may be clarified that double royalty should not be charged on the same mineral on which already the royalty has been paid at the time of excavation/removal of the same from the mining lease. There is no dispute between the parties that double royalty is not to be charged from the mineral either at the time of excavation or mining lease and sale. However, the dispute is with regard to the non- production of papers. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the members of the petitioner Association have already submitted a representation to the respondents. The counsel has also drawn my attention to Annex.3, letter written by the Additional Director dt. 9.2.2004 whereby the Mining Engineer was directed not to charge royalty from polished mineral in respect of which royalty has already been paid by the lease holder and the purchaser has taken the receipt thereof. It was clarified that the contractor should not be allowed to recover the royalty twice contrary to the rules and in case any royalty is recovered, then the purchaser will submit receipt of payment of royalty. Lastly he has clarified that no royalty may be charged twice on the same mineral in the aforesaid district. The grievance of the petitioner is much redressed by the aforesaid circular dated 9.2.04 (Anex.3) and the Government also in its reply has not disputed the aforesaid proposition which is according to the rules. The Government Advocate has further submitted that as per rules 47 and 54 of the rules of 1986 person in possession of the mineral is accountable to the department and they have further empowered to summon the record. I have considered the above mentioned submissions of the parties and gone through the record of the case. I am of the view that the royalty cannot be charged on the same mineral twice. The State Government has given limited right to the Mining Authorities and asked the mineral holders to produce the royalty receipt or pay the royalty, otherwise to face the penal consequence as laid down in Rules 47 and 54 of the Rules of 1986. In case receipt is produced, then no further royalty can be charged. The Mining Authorities are restrained from charging royalty twice from the members of the petitioner-association. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. (P.S. ASOPA),J. Sandeep/- 20