KRISHNA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above group of case, 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 September 4, 1977, M. V. Subba Rao, is the lessee for black granite stone; whereas in the petition lodged on December, 8, 1977, the following firms; M/s- Road Metal Industries; M/S. Mahaveer Metal Industries; Hyderabed Metal Industries; Fine Granite Pvt. Ltd., and Superfine Crusker are lessees of granite stone. In the petition lodged on December 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 undet the Mine and Minaral (Regulation and Development) Act, Act 67 of 195? (the Act.). Dead Rent to be precise is sought to be collected from them under rules promulgated on September, 4, 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 March 25, 1977. The rule prescribed levy of dead rent if it is highter than the royalty payable on minerals removed. Schedule I to Rule ten prescribes sates for seignorage (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 I and Entry 23 of the Provincial 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 pstroleum products are separately dealt in Entry 53 of Lilt I, In the 1935 Act, unless it was delcared by Federal Law to Jbe expedient in the public interest, the Provincial Legislature vested the power to legislate on the subject of mines and minerals. Similar position is maintaining in the Constitution in Entry 54 of List I to the State, the parliament if it declares expedient in public interest, may legislate 00 the subject of minor minerals, otherwise minor minerals are enumerated in Entry 23 of list of State List. Th Indian Parliament in Sec. 2 of the Act declared that the Union to control "mines and regulate' department of minerals. Having declared the Praliament enforced the Act from June 1st, 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 September. 12, 1972. In that amendment, Secs. 4-A, 9-A, 13-A 18-A and 23-A and the IIIrd Schedule were introduced, Secs. 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 28, were amended. The Act in Sec. 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, Secs. 4 to 13 are excluded from com (deration 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 a tax, that it is an impost. That dead rent is also "financial burden". Tha 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. 366 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.