LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HINDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.STAIB OF RAJASTHAN , ·I V, HINDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS. JULY 14, 1988 [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 Section 9( 3) (b )-Levy and Collection of royalty on limestone- Notification enhancing the levy-Validity of. A B Constitution of India, 19§°=Art. 226-High Court ~xercising high prerogative power-to moul.d relief in a just and fair manner as C required by the demands of the situation. The Central Government issued a Notification dated January 29, 1970 under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 authorising the levy and collection of royalty on limestou'e at D Rs.1.25 per tonne. The Respondents ·filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Notification .. The High Court struck down the impugned notification on the ground that the Central Govt. had enhanced the rate of royalty by . virtue of the said notification in disregard of the statutory embargo ,E embodied in clause (b) of the proviso io section 9(3) of the Act whic.h prohibits enhancement more than once during any period of four years. The State of Rajasthan which was recovering .roy:dty at th• en. hanced rates has filed these two appeals by special leave. Allowing the appeals partly, this Court, HELD: 1.1 The only vice in the impugned Notification is that the enhancement was authorised nearly four months too soon in advance F i.e. on January 29, 1970. The enhancement could have been made with impunity without violati11g proviso (b) to sub-section(3) of section .9. G abont fonr months later. The enhancement was therefore unenforceable only during this period of four months. The enhancement coul!l have been lawfully made without any impediment on June 1, 1970. Dµriµg this interregnum the Notification would have remained !forma11t. U oder the circums(ances ttie just and fair course to adopt is to issue a Writ restraining the State of Rajasthan from enforcing the enhance- H 461 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. A . ment for the interregnum of about four months expiring on 31st May, 1970 instead of striking down the Notification in absolute terms for all times as has been done by the High Court. [4698-E] 1.2 The enhancement was merely premature and not void in the sense that the enhancement could have been lawfully enforced with B effect from June 1, 1970 and could not have been made enforceable on the date of the issuance of the Notification on 29th January, 1970. Such a Notification in the eye of law, must be treated as dormant for the interregnum of about four months till it becomes enforceable on June 1, 1970 upon the commencement of the next four-year block. The enhan- cement was authorised by the Legislature. However, there was an C embargo making it enforceable only once during the course of the four- year block. It would be taking a super-techni~al view to hold that a fresh Notification could have been issued on June 1, 1970 and that Notifica- tion issued on 29th January, 1970 should be quashed. I 467G-H; 468A-B J D.K. Trivedi & Sot1s and Ors. v. State·of Gujarat & Ors. etc., D I 1986] Suppl. sec 20, relied on. Mahendra Lal Jaini v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1963] Suppl. 1SCR912 and Bhikaji Narain Dhakaras v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 2 SCR 589, distinguished. E 2. The High Court was exercising high prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 and could have moulded the relief in a just and fair manner as required by the demands of the situation. The High Court · could well have proceeded on the premise that the enhancement made pursuant to the Notification dated January 29, 1970 was unenforce- able for the four months preceding June 1, 1970 on which date the F enhancement could have been lawfully enforced pursuant to the Notification. [467F-G] 3. The order of the High Court quashing the impugned Noti- fication dated January 29, 1970 is set aside. In place thereof the State of Rajasthan is restrained from enforcing the impugned Noti- G fication till 31st May, 1970 with the clarification that the enhance- ment as per the said Notification authorising collection of levy at Rs.1.25 per tonne would be enforceable with effect from June 1, 1970 onwards. [469G-H] [This Court observed that such amount as remains to be H recovered in the light of the present Judgment will have to be paid STATEOFRAJASTHAN v:HJNDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS [THAKKAR, J.I 463 by the Respondents
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.