Case: State Of Bihar  Vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma (Dead)Thr. Lrs

payable in respect of any minor Mineral w.e.f. the date of the publication of the notification in the official gazette. Though it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the mandate contained in sub-rule 5 of Rule 26 authorizing the State Government to enhance or reduce the rate of rents/royalties, has to be construed to make such enhancement or reduction effective essentially on and from the date of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette to that effect, we are unable to subscribe to this plea vis-a-vis the Notification dated 26.12.2001 in its operation. In our estimate, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Rules and, in particular the two Notifications in hand and most importantly the footnote to the one dated 24.03.2001, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 is only clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as it declares only the areas from which, if the minerals concerned are extracted would draw the rate of royalty already fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, payable on and from 01.04.2001. 17. No other interpretation would accord with the legislative intendment contained in Rule 26 as well as the objectives of the two Notifications. 18. All the decisions cited at the Bar are to the effect that a delegated legislation cannot traverse beyond the contours of the authority endowed by the parent statute and unless authorized by it, is not empowered to make any law or provision with retrospective effect, impairing the already vested rights of those likely to be adversely affected thereby. In our mind, these pronouncements, in the singular facts of the case are of no avail to the respondents having regard in particular to the clarificatory nature of the Notification dated 26.12.2001. 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 622 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while dwelling on the sweep of a clarificatory or declaratory legal provision, relied on the following extract from the celebrated treatise Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Edition 2008 by Justice G.P. Singh: The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in Craies and approved by the Supreme Court: For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any Statute. Such acts are usually held to be retrospective......... ….........An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended. The language `shall be deemed always to have meant or `shall be deemed never to have included is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law. 20. The following quote contained in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 5100 , was also noted with approval: 14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is to explain an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended.... An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect. 21. The proposition has been so well laid that we do not wish to burden the present rendition by referring to other rulings in the same vein. Suffice it to state that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, in order to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts qua any prior law, retrospective operation thereof is generally intended. Applying this test, in absence of any indication to the contrary, either in the parent Act or the Rules or the Notifications involved, we are thus of the unhesitant opinion that on a conjoint reading of Rule 26 and the two Notifications, the enhanced rate of royalty at Rs.100/- per cubic meter for boulder, gravel and shingle, which are used or are capable of being used for making chips would be realizable w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and axiomatically thus, the respondents are liable to discharge the demand, therefor, as raised in terms thereof. The respondents were fully aware of the amended rate of Rs. 100/- per cubic metre for the minerals extracted by them and thus the reasoning of the High Court that they might not have passed on the burden to their purchasers is without any factual basis and being clearly speculative is untenable. The High Court, in our view, had clearly erred in interpreting the relevant legal provisions and the Notification dated 26.12.2001 in particular in holding that the enhanced rates, as fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, would be payable for the minerals involved, as extracted from the two areas, mentioned in the Notification dated 26.12.2001 on and from that date. The determination made by the High Court is thus indefensible and consequently, the impugned decision is hereby set aside.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. In Re Rule 26, it is apparent therefrom that when a lease is granted or renewed, amongst others royalty would be charged at the rate specified in Schedule II and that the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, amend the First and Second Schedules so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which rents/ royalty would be payable in respect of any minor Mineral w.e.f. the date of the publication of the notification in the official gazette. Though it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the mandate contained in sub-rule 5 of Rule 26 authorizing the State Government to enhance or reduce the rate of rents/royalties, has to be construed to make such enhancement or reduction effective essentially on and from the date of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette to that effect, we are unable to subscribe to this plea vis-a-vis the Notification dated 26.12.2001 in its operation. In our estimate, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Rules and, in particular the two Notifications in hand and most importantly the footnote to the one dated 24.03.2001, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 is only clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as it declares only the areas from which, if the minerals concerned are extracted would draw the rate of royalty already fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, payable on and from 01.04.200118. All the decisions cited at the Bar are to the effect that a delegated legislation cannot traverse beyond the contours of the authority endowed by the parent statute and unless authorized by it, is not empowered to make any law or provision with retrospective effect, impairing the already vested rights of those likely to be adversely affected thereby. In our mind, these pronouncements, in the singular facts of the case are of no avail to the respondents having regard in particular to the clarificatory nature of the Notification dated 26.12.200120. The following quote contained in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 5100  , was also noted with approval:14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes.... In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is to explain an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended.... An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect21. The proposition has been so well laid that we do not wish to burden the present rendition by referring to other rulings in the same vein. Suffice it to state that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, in order to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts qua any prior law, retrospective operation thereof is generally intended. Applying this test, in absence of any indication to the contrary, either in the parent Act or the Rules or the Notifications involved, we are thus of the unhesitant opinion that on a conjoint reading of Rule 26 and the two Notifications, the enhanced rate of royalty at Rs.100/- per cubic meter for boulder, gravel and shingle, which are used or are capable of being used for making chips would be realizable w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and axiomatically thus, the respondents are liable to discharge the demand, therefor, as raised in terms thereof. The respondents were fully aware of the amended rate of Rs. 100/- per cubic metre for the minerals extracted by them and thus the reasoning of the High Court that they might not have passed on the burden to their purchasers is without any factual basis and being clearly speculative is untenable. The High Court, in our view, had clearly erred in interpreting the relevant legal provisions and the Notification dated 26.12.2001 in particular in holding that the enhanced rates, as fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, would be payable for the minerals involved, as extracted from the two areas, mentioned in the Notification dated 26.12.2001 on and from that date. The determination made by the High Court is thus indefensible and consequently, the impugned decision is hereby set aside.