M V KRISHNA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above group of cases the lessees of various types of stone ( minor minerals ) have approached this Court under Art . 226 of the Constitution to interdict the State of Andhra Pradesh not to collect "dead rent" from them. In the petition lodged on 4/09/1977 M. V. Subba Rao , is the lessee for black granite stone: whereas in the petition lodged on 8/12/1977 , the following five firms : M/s Road Metal Industries: Hyderabad Metal Industries ; Fine Granite Pvt. Ltd. And Supreme Crusker are lessees for granite stone. In the petition lodged on Dec. 18, 1978 M. V. Krishna Rao is the lessee for black rough stone. All these lessees make a common cause against the State Government when "dead rent" is demanded for them under the Mines and Mineral ( Regulation and Development ) Act , 67 of 1957 ( the Act) . Dead Rent to be precise is sought to be collected from them under rules promulgated on 4/09/1977 . The rules are known as Mineral Concessions Rules of 1966. ( The Rule ) . Rule 10 of the Rules pertains to dead rent and is substituted from 25/03/1977. The rule prescribes levy of dead rent if it is higher than the royalty payable on minerals removed. Schedule I to Rule ten prescribes rates for seigniorage ( royalty) fee. Schedule II pertains to rates of dead rent when levied.

(2.) In the Govt. Of India Act 1935, the subject of mines and minerals were dealt in Entry 36 of the Federal Legislature List II in the seventh Schedule of the Act together with the subject of "oil fields" . In the constitution of India oil fields and petroleum products are separately dealt in Entry 53 of List I . In the 1935 Act, unless it was declared by Federal Law to be expedient in the public interest , the Provincial Legislature vested the power to legislate on the subject of mines and minerals. Similar position is maintained in the Constitution in Entry 54 of List I to the State, the Parliament if it declares expedient in public interest , may legislate on the subject of minor minerals are enumerated in Entry 23 of list II of State List. The Indian Parliament in Sec. 2 of the Act declared that the Union to "control" mines and "regulate" development of minerals. Having declared the Parliament enforced the Act from 1/06/1958 : The Act was amended by the Mines and Minerals ( Regulation and Development ) Amendment Act 56 of 1972 ( amending Act ) The amending provisions were enforced from 12/09/1972 . In that amendment Ss 4-A 0-A 13-A 18-A and 23-A and the III Schedule were introduced. Sections 6,9,14,15,16,17,21,25,28, were amended. The Act in S.14 recites Secs. 4 to 13 are not applicable to minor minerals. Therefore, in considering the numerous questions raised by the lessees in the above cases. Ss.4 to 13 are excluded from consideration except where the subject for purpose of analogy is deemed relevant.

(3.) The debate in the cases covered wide-ranging subjects particularly , the learned counsel appearing for the black granite lessees argued that dead rent in the Act or in the rules is not defined. That dead rent is also " financial burden" . The last of the words " financial Burden" were repeatedly uttered to mean a tax within the meaning of Art. 265 or the word " Taxation" in item 28 of Art. 266 of the Constitution of India. In that sense , it was also argued royalty was a tax or an impost and a financial burden. That no tax fee or financial burden can be imposed by the Parliament through subordinate legislation. It was contended delegation to levy a tax could not have been made under the Constitution unless expressly the Parliament in the Act enabled the impost or the levy of financial burden. The contrary position was assumed by the Andhra Pradesh State Government, so it was said and dead rent was imposed on lessees by recourse to subordinate legislation , therefore, the impost of dead rent or " financial Burden" was contended to be invalid in law.