LexD.K. TRIVEDI AND SONS AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
479
D.K. TRIVEDI AND SONS AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
MARCH 5, 1986
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND D.P. MADON, JJ,]
J
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
~
1957 (Act. No.67 of 1957), Section 15(1), Constitutionality of
-
Whether the State Government has the power to make rules
under section 15 to enable them to charge dead rent and
royalty during the subsistence of ~uch leases - Validity of
Notifications/circular issued by the Gujarat Government under
section 15 amending the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 and
dated 29,11.74, 29.10,75, 4.6.76, 26.3,79, 12.2.81 and 18.6.81
- Validity of Rule 21B of the Gujarat Minor Mineral
Rules,
1966.
The Writ Petitioners and appellants, were persons to
whom the State of Gujarat had granted quarry leases and mining
leases in respect of minor minerals such as black trap, lime·
stones,
1111rrum,
bentonite,
rubble,
marble,
sandstone,
quartzite, etc. In exercise of the powers conferred by section
15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
1957, the Government of Gujarat made
the Gujarat Minor
Mineral Rules, 1966. The said Rules came into force on April
1, 1966. All the leases in .the matters before the Court were
given in the form prescribed by the said Rules, Schedule I to
the said Rules specified the rates at which royalty was
payable and Schedule II specified the rates at which dead rent
was payable. By the 1974 Notification the Government of
Gujarat made the Gujarat Minor Mineral
(Fourth Amendment)
Rules, 1974 whereby Schedule I was substituted and Schedule II
was amended with effect from December 1, 1974. Under the new
Schedule I and the amended Schedule II the rates of royalty
and dead rent in ' respect of certain minor minerals were
enhanced. In view of several representations made to it, the
; {;overnment of Gujarat decided not to implement the 1974 Noti-
fication and to refund the amount.of royalty, if any, collect-
ed at the rates prescribed by the 1974 Notification. By the
1975 Notification the GOvernment of Gujarat made the Gujarat
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] i s.c.R.
Minor Mineral {Second Amendment) Rules, 1975, whereby Rule 21
of the said Rules and Schedule I were substituted with effect '·
from November 1, 1975. By the said substituted Schedule I the
rates of royalty in respect of several items were enhanced.
The Appellant in C.A. 706/81, Ambalal Manibhai Patel,
B
being aggrieved by the· said 1975 Notification, filed a Writ
Petition in the Gujarat High Court (Sp.C.Ap.66/78) challenging
the enhancement in the rate of royalty to Rs ,3 per metric ,
tonne in respect of black trap and hard Murrum specified in
Item 4 of the said substituted Schedule I. The Writ Petition
having been dismissed, the appellant filed LPA No.61/78 which
C
was heard along with several writ petitions rai!ling the same
questions. The main contention raised in those matters was
that under the proviso to section 15(3) of the 1957 Act, the
rate of royalty .in respect of any m.inor mineral could not be
enhanced by the State Government more than once during any
period of four years and that the rate of roya.lty on black
O
trap and hard llllrrum having been increased by the 197 4
Notification, it could not be increased again in 1975, A ~
subsidiary contention raised was that the State G.>vernment had
no power to classify building stones into black !;rap and hard
llllrrum because by doing so what the State Government had done
in effect and substance was to declare black trap and hard
~
murrum as m.inor minerals and that it was only the Central
Government which
possessed the power to declare any m.ineral
not covered by the definition of the expre11sion "m.inor
minerals" in clause (e) of section 3 of the 1957 Act to be a
m.inor m.ineral.
Both these contentions were rejected by a
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated
~
16/17 September 1980 holding that the 197'• Notification had
not become operative and, therefore, in issuing the 1975
Notification the State Government had not violated the proviso
to section 15(3), and that building stones having been already
included in the definition of "m.inor m.inerals", there was no
bar to the State Government classifying them into different
varieties for the purpose of recovering royalty. Civil. Appeal
706/81 is by Special Leave of the Court against the said
judgment.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.