QUARRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues in these appeals, apparently impress a common picturisation of usual nature but they are raised in an interesting way while challenging the fixation of the rate of royalty for the minor minerals under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question for consideration is, the ambit of delegation of power by the Parliament to the State Government under Section 15 of the said Act. Can it be said that the delegation is unbridled without any check if it travels beyond the guidelines as spelt by this Court in the case of D. K. Trivedi and Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 (Supp) SCC 20 : (AIR 1986 SC 1323). In the present case neither the validity of delegation under Section 15 nor it being without any guideline is under challenge but both the appellants and the respondents State stress two different orbits for the guideline, the appellants constrict it to be within what is spelt in the D. K. Trivedi case (supra) while the respondents stress it not to be confined to that case. The impugned notifications dated 17th August, 1991 and 28th September, 1994 issued by the State of Bihar enhancing the rate of royalty have to be tested as in which of the two orbits it falls. If it falls within the restricted orbit, as submitted by the appellants, it may be ultra vires but would be valid if it falls within the other orbit. Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel, submits that extents and limitations of the power of the delegatee have to be read as laid down by this Court in D.K. Trivedi case (supra), where the validity of this very delegation of power to the State Government was under challenge. Based on this, the submission is. Item 54 of the Second Schedule of the Act controls and guides the State Government (hereinafter referred to as 'the State'), for fixing or enhancing the rate of royalty which has to be within the reasonable bounds of 12% of the sale price at the pit's mouth. Admittedly in the present case it is far beyond this, hence the submission is that the impugned notifications are liable to be struck down. On the other hand, submission for the respondents the State of Bihar by learned senior counsel Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi is that D. K. Trivedi's case (AIR 1986 SC 1323) (supra) neither restricts nor limits the power of enhancement of royalty to Item 54, Schedule II of the Act nor it exhaustively dealt with all other sources of guidelines which was not necessary in that case, which can be gathered from other provisions of the Act, the objects and reasons, the scheme of the Act and the nature of material etc.

(2.) Before entering into this legal tangle, it is necessary to turn to some of the essential facts to appreciate more fully the (sic). The present appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 16th October, 1996 of the High Court passed in writ petitions by which the petition of the appellants, namely, Quarry Owners Association etc. challenging the aforesaid notifications dated 17th August, 1991 and 28th September, 1994, issued by the State including challenge to the recovery of the enhanced royalty under it and for the refund of the amount already paid were dismissed.

(3.) The Preamble of the Act lays down.