PATHAR KHAN KAAMGAAR UNION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - a union of the licensees working in the mining area, has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 24-12-98 (Annex. 1) passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur - respondent No. 3 whereby the yearly licence fees of Somanara and Kalor is raised from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2100/- per year w.e.f. 15-2-99 and 1-1-99 respectively.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner challenged the same on the ground that it was in clear breach of Rule 29(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, "the Rules"). Rule 29(5) reads as under :-

(3.) The submission of Mr. Vyas was that the Mining Engineer cannot raise the licence fee before a period of four years from any such previous enhancement. He submitted that last time it was enhanced on 1-1-96 and now it is sought to be enhanced from 1-1-99 i.e. within three years, which is less than period of four years. He further submitted that Rule 29(5) clearly provides that the enhancement of licence fee shall not be made before a period of four years from any such previous enhancement. He submitted that the word, "shall" shows that the Mining Engineer was prohibited from raising the licence fee before a period of four years from the previous enhancement. At first sight, this submission of Mr. Vyas looks attractive. However, reading the entire Rule 29(5) of the Rules as a whole, the word, "shall" should be read as "may" and not "must". The way in which the prices are increasing, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong if the yearly licence fee is enhanced from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2100/- within three years.