WP/2529/1999 of MOHAMED AZAM PAPU Vs THE SPL OFFICER SARWAKLA on 22 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAAND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR

W.P.NOs. 2529 of 1999, 20168 to 20173, 17945, 19396, 20677 of 1998,776 to 778,1442, 1443, 1924, 1925,, 3090, 6200 to 6204, 6413, 6414,7788, 8521, 8653, 12761, 12917 to 12922, 13132, 13135, 13204 to13207, 13571 to 13575, 13691, 13692, 13718, 13719, 13895 to 13897,13976, 13977, 14086 to 14088, 14130 to 14135, 14156, 14157, 14191,14192, 14445, 14464 to 14468, 14696 to 14699, 14861, 15830, 15831,16747, 17654, 17726, 17848, 17849, 18075, 18324, 18698, 18704,19204, 19265, 19704, 20140, 20322, 20496, 20497 of 1999, 397, 2976,8679, 10265, 10535, 10656, 10657, 10724, 10881, 15426 to 15428,15697, 18689, 20200 of 2000, 1359 of 2001, 20428, 20815, 22593,23762, 27927 & 27928 of 2004andWMP.Nos.27171, 29393, 29394, 31252/98, 1031 to 1033, 2763, 2764,3596 8942 to 8946, 9229, 9230, 11114, 12042, 23352, 12232, 18310,18520 to 18522, 18823 to 18826, 18952 to 18955, 19529 to 19533,19717, 19718, 19759, 19760, 20020 to 20022, 20156, 20157, 20332 to20334, 20394 to 20399, 20429, 20430, 20489, 20490, 20900, 20924 to20928, 21248, 21250, 21478, 22885, 25679, 25680, 25800, 25972,25973, 26748, 26749, 27324, 28124, 28210, 29574, 29838, 29839,30098, 30099, 24267, 27319, 27320, 26283 of 1999, 574, 4578, 16393,14805, 10657, 27062 of 2000, 7275 of 2001, 33947, 33948, 25055,24586, 28810, 27317 of 2004 and 1403 of 2005

M/s.Sri Balaji Mineralsrep. by its ProprietorV.Ranghuramachandran..Petitioner in WP 2529/99

M/s. Imperial Granites, rep.by itsGeneral Manager, Vedantham..Petitioner in WP 20168/98& 20169/98 to 20173/98G.Vellaimurugan..Petitioner in WP No.17945/98

A.Anbaruvi..Petitioner in WP 19396/98

E.C.SeniappanProp. Annamar Granites,Erode..Petitioner in WP 20677/98Pallava Granite Industries,rep. by its Managing PartnerK.Subba Reddy..Petitioner in WP 776/99 and20428/04

M/s.Petty Granites rep.by itsManaging Partner K.Subba Reddy..Petitioner in WP 777/99 and8521/99

P.Rajasekaran..Petitioner in WP 6201/99

P.Senthil Kumar..Petitioner in WP 6202/99

M/s. Lakshmi Enterprises, rep. by itsManaging Partner P.K.Selvaraj..Petitioner in WP 6204/99V.K.Kottaiveeran..Petitioner in WP No.6413/99 6414/99Prem Anand..Petitioner in WP 7788/99

K.R.Muthu @ Valampuri Muthurep. by Power of Attorney HolderN.Ranganathan..Petitioner in WP 8653/99

Swan Stonarts(P) Ltd., rep. by itsManaging Director M.D.Venkatesan..Petitioner in WP 12761/99

Pluto-D-Granites a Partnership Firmrep. by its Managing partnerP.K.Selvaraj..Petitioner in WP No.12917 to 12922/99M/s. Imperial Granites Ltd,rep by its General Manager,Vedantham.. Petitioner in W.P.13135/95C.Krishnappa Gounder..Petitioner in WP 13204/99S.Sumathi..Petitioner in WP 13205/99 &13206/99Royal Granites rep. by itsPartner Zameer Basha..Petitioner in WP 13207/99

M/s. Sakthi Enterprises, rep. by itsPartner C.Ramasamy..Petitioner in WP No.13572/99& 13573/99

A.RajamaniMahalaklshmi Enterprises..Petitioner in WP 13574/99P.Jayaraj..Petitioner in WP 13575/99

M/s. K.M.B.Granitesrep. by its Managing PartnerK.Yusuff Basha..Petitioner in WP 13718/99

M/s. Global Trading Company rep.by its Managing Partner

K.M.Kadeer Mohideen..Petitioner in WP.13719/99

R.V.Granites rep. by its ProprietorJ.Premalatha..Petitioner in WP 13895 to 13897/99

M/s. Amman Granites rep. by its (General) Manager R.Chandrasekaran ..Petitioner in WP 13976 &13977/99

M/s. Vig Sans Granites rep.. by itsPrioprietor G.Palanisamy..Petitioner in WP 14086/99

M/s. Indian Furniture Worksrep. by its Parnter N.K.Ashwath Rama..Petitioner in WP 14087/99

P.MeenakshiM/s. Sankarar Granites..Petitioner in WP 14088/99

M/s.Amman Granites Export (P) Ltd.,rep. by its Managing Director, M/s. Indira Granites rep. by itsPartner V.Venkateswaran..Petitioner in WP No.14156/99

M/s.Rani Granites rep. by itsManaging Partner K.Yusuf..Petitioner in WP 14157/99

M/s. Amman Granites rep. by itsPartner M.Mase..Petitioenr in WP 14191/99 & 14192/99

M/s. Evershine Granites rep. by itsPartner Asghar Ahmed Pasha..Petitioner in WP 14445/99B.Venkatesh..Petitioner in WP 14464/99 to 14466/99

A.Latha..Petitioner in WP 14696/99 &14698/99

Always Exports, rep. by its Managing Partner S.Kumari Kanagam..Petitioner in WP 17654/99G.Nagarathanamma..Petitioner in WP 17726/99A.K.Pounraj..Petitioner in WP Nos.17848 & 17849/99

Mahalakshmi Enterprises rep. by'its Proprietress A.Rajamani M/s. Amman Granites rep. by itsPartner M.Mase..Petitioner in WP 18324/99

M/s. Shyms Granites rep by its Managing Partner K.Y. Basha... Petitioner in W.P.18704/99

M.Duraisamy..Petitioner in WP No.19265/99

M/s.Imperial Granites (P) Ltd.,rep. by its Director..Petitioner in WP 19704/99

A.Thimmarayan..Petitioner in WP 20140/99

M/s. Venkateswara Mines rep. by itsManaging Partner K.P.Raju..Petitioner in WP 20322/99

Karunai Granites (P) Ltd., rep. by itsManaging Director, K.Karunakaran..Petitioner in WP 20496 &20497/99

P.Jayaraj..Petitioner in WP 397/2000

S.Baskaran

..Petitioner in WP 2976/2000 and W.P.No.10657/2000

Sundaram Granites rep. by its Managing ParnterV.K.Nalliyappan

..Petitioner in WP 8679/2000

National Granites (P) LTd.,rep. bhy its Managing Director, N.Kokila..Petitioner in WP 10535/2000

V.K.Sundaram..Petitioner in WP 10656/2000

M/s.Kunnam Granites works rep. byits Managing ParnterG,.Rajaretnam..Petitioner in WP 10724/2000

M/s. Syhims Granites rep. by itsParnter K.Yusuff Basha..Petitioner in WP Nos. 15426 & 15427/2000M/s. Om Sakthi Granites rep. by itsParnter E.Dhanapal..Petitioner in WOP 15428/2000K.Panneerselvam..Petitioner in WP 15697/2000R.P.M.Exports rep. by its Proprietor R.P.Murugan..Petitioner in WP 18689/2000K.S.N.& Company rep. by itsProprietor G.Gopal..Petitioner in WP 20200/2000N.Tamilselvi..Petitioner in WP 1359/2001

..Petitioner in WP Nos. 15426 & 15427/2000

M/s. Pallava Granite Industries,rep. by its Parnter K.Sailaja Reddy..Petitioner in WP 22593/2004N.Deivendran..Petitioner in WP 23762/2004Tmt. A.Raja Mani..Petitioner in WP 27927/2004

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. bySecretary to Govt. Industries Dept.Fort St. George, Chennai -9...1st Respondent in WP No.2529/99,20168/98,20169to 20173/98,17945/98, 19396, 10677, 776 to 778/99 1442 & 1443/991924 & 1925/99 3090/99, 6200 to6204/99, 6413, 64141/99, 7788,8521,8653/99,12761,12917to 12922/99, 13132,13135, 13204 to13207/99, 13571 to 13575/99,13691 & 13692/99, 13718 ^13719/99, 13976 to 13897/99,13976 &13977, 14086 to 14088,14130 to 14135/99, 14156, 14157,14191, 14199, 14445,14464 to14468, 14696 to 14699, 14861,15830, 15831, 16747, 17654,17726, 17848, 17849, 18075,18324, 18704, 19204, 19265,19704, 220140, 20322, 20496,20497/99, 397/2000,2976,8679,10535,10724 ,15426to15428,15697,18689,20200/2000, 1359/01, 20815,22593, 23762/2004.

The District CollectorKrishnagiri,Krishnagiri District1st Respondent in WP.No.27927/04, 27928/04

The District Collector,Namakkal,Namakkal District 2nd Respondent in WP.No.17726/99, 19265/99 and Respondents in W.P.No.10656/2k The District Collector,Vellore,Vellore District 2nd Respondent in WP.No.19204/99.Respondent in WP.No.10881/2000

The District Collector,Pudukkottai,Pudukkottai District.

2nd Respondent in WP.No.2976/2000Respondent in WP.No.10657/2000

The District Collector,The Collector of Villupuram,Villupuram District 1ST rESPONDENT IN w.pS.20428/042nd Respondent in WP.No.2529/99, 776 to 778/99, 1442 & 1443/99, 1924 & 1925/99, 3090/99, 8521/99. WP.No.20815/04, 22593/04

The Deputy Director of Mines,Dharmapuri2nd Respondent in WP.No.18698/99.The District Collector, KarurKarur District2nd Respondent in W.P.10724/2k, 15426 to 15428/2k, 15697The District Collector,Thiruvannamalai District,Thiruvannamalai.2nd Respondent in WP.No.20168/98, 20169 to 12173/98, 17945/98, 13976& 13977/99, 14130 & 14131/99.The Assistant Director of Geology & MiningKrishnagiri2nd Respondent in WP.No.27927/04, 27928/04The District Collector,SalemSalem District.2nd Respondent in WP.No.17654/99, 18075, 18704, 19704, 20322, 20496, 20497/99, 397/2000, 10535

2nd Respondent in WP.No.20168/98, 20169 to 12173/98, 17945/98, 13976& 13977/99, 14130 & 14131/99.

The Assistant Director of Geology & Mining,Villupuram.2nd Respondent in WP.No.20428/04.

The District Collector,Erode,Erode District 2nd Respondent in WP.No.19396/98, 20677, 12761/99.

The District Collector,Dharmapuri,Dharmapuri District.IST RESPONDENTINW.PS. 18698/99 AND 10265/2000 2nd Respondent in WP.Nos.12917 to 12922/99, 13132, 13135, 13204 to13207/99, 13571 to 13575/99, 13691 &13692/99, 13718 & 13719, 13895 to13897/99, 14086 to 14088/99, 14132to 14135/99, 14156 & 14157, 14191,14192, 14445, 14464 to 14468, 14696to 14699, 14861, 16747, 17848,17849, 18324, 20140/99,8679/2000.AND, 18689, 20200/2k3rd Respondent inWP.No.15830/99, 15831

The District Collector,Madurai,Madurai District2nd Respondent in WP.No.6200 to 6204/99, 6413, 6414/99, 8653/99, 1359/01, 23762/04.and2nd Respondent in WP.No.7788/99.

The Director of Geology & MiningChennai - 32Industrial Estate,Guindy.3rd Respondent in WP.No.7788/99, 17848 & 17849/99.

The Deputy Director of Geology & Mining95, Sankari Nagar,Salem - 7.3rd Respondent in WP.No.17654/99.

The Deputy Director of Geology & MiningSalem, Salem District3rd Respondent in WP.No.20322/99.

Prayers in all WPs

I. Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a writ of declaration declaring Rule 1. 8E of the Tami naduMinor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 introduced by G.O.Ms. No.603/Industries 17.9.1998 and the consequential proceedings of the2nd Respondent made in Ref A/G&M/1615-98-1 dated 18.12.98 asunconstitutional and illegal WP.No.2529/99.

2. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 asorbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 19 (1) of the constitutionof India is so far as the petitioner is concerned. WP.Nos.20169/98,20171, 20173/98 1924/99, 13135/99, 13692/99, 14131, 14133 & 14133 &14135/99, 14192, 20140, 20497,

3. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 603/Industries (MMC,1) Department dated17.9.1998 and the order of the second respondent in Na. Ka.No.768/Minerals/98-7 dated 15.10.1998 as illegal untra vires,WP.No.17945/98.

4. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 603/Industries (MMC,1) Department dated17.9.1998 and the order of the second respondent bearingRef.No.81650/98/X-2 Mines dated 28.10.1998 in respect of thepetitioner's lease hold quarry measuring 0-52-5 Hectares comprisedin Survey.No.S.F.No.176/part and 177/Part situated in ChikkakajanurVillage, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District illegal ultra vires(WP.No.20677/98)

5. 8E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries (MMC.1) Department dated17.09.98 and the order of the Second Respondent bearing Ref.A/G&M/1613/98-1 dated 18.12.98 in respect of the petitioner's leasehold quarry measuring 5-02-0 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.03situated in SEMANGALAM Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District asillegal, ultra vires. (W.P.776/99)

6.8E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries (MMC.1) Department dated17.09.98 and the order of the Second Respondent bearing Ref.A/G&M/1617/98-1 dated 18.12.98 in respect of the petitioner's leasehold quarry measuring 0-08-0 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.17

situated in PERUMBAKKAM Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District asillegal, ultra vires. (W.P.777/99)

7. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 603/Industries (MMC,1) Department dated17.9.1998 and the order of the second respondent bearing Ref. A/G &M/1618/98-1 dated 18.12.1998 in respect of the petitioner's leasehold quarry measuring 0-59-0 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.8/5situated in Kunnam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District asillegal, ultra vires (WP.No.778/99).

8. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 603/Industries (MMC,1) Department dated17.9.1998 and the order of the second respondent bearing RefA/G&M/1611/98-1 dated 18.12.1998 in respect of the petitioner'slease hold quarry measuring 1-30-5 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.47/4situated in Kannam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villpuram District of asillegal, ultra vires as for as the petitioner is concerned(WP.No.1442/99)

9. 8 E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minweral concession Rules 1959introduced by GO.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the order of the 2[nd]respondent bearingRef.A/G&M/1619/98-1 dated 18.12.98 in respect of the petitioner'slease sold quarry measuring 5-06-5 Hectares comprised inR.S.Nos.24/1 and 13/1 situated in Semangalam Village, Vanur Taluk,villupuram District as illegal, Ultravires as far as the petitioneris concerned. WP.No.1443/1999.

10. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd]Respondent bearingRef.A/G&M/1614/98-1 dated 18.12.98 in respect of the petitioner'slease hold quarry measuring 1-13-5 Hectares comprised in RS.No.29/3[Old NO.168/5] situated in Kunnam Village, Vanur Taluk, VillupuramDistrict as illegal ultravires.WP.No.3090/99.

11. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd]Respondent bearingRoc.No.Mines/1495/98 dated 19.2.1999 in respect of the petitionerslease hold quarry measuring 1-73-5 Hectares, 2.00 Acres, 1-20-0Hectares, 1-20-0 Hectares, 5 acres comprised in SF.Nos.267/2, 154/1,261/2, 3 and 297/5, 297/5[Part] and 525/1 situated in KeelavalavuVillage, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District, Idayapatti Village,Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District Keelavalavu village, MelurTaluk, Madurai District Thiruvadavoor Village, Melur Taluk, MaduraiDistrict as illegal, Ultravires respectively WP.Nos.6200 to 6204/99.

12. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Ref.ROC.No.Mines1495/98 dated 19.2.99 in respect of the petitioners lease holdquarry measuring 1.00 Acres 1.00 Acres comprised in SurveyS.F.Nos.70/3, 99, situates in Keelaiyur Village, Melur Taluk,Madurai District as illegal, ultra vires respectively WP.Nos.6413and 6414/99.

13.8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd]Respondent bearingRef.A/G&M/1616/98-1 dt. 18.12.98 in respect of the petitioner'slease hold quarry measuring 2-00 Hectares comprised in R.S.No.01,situated in Poonampoondi Village, Vanur Tk, Villupuram District asillegal, ultravires.WP.No.8521/99.

14. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 603/Industries (MMC,1) Department dated17.9.1998 and the order of the second respondent bearing ReferenceNumber 81650/98/X-2/Minies dated 3.3.1999 in respect of thepetitioner's lease hold quarry measuring 0-40-5 Hectares comprisedin S.F.No.396/1(part) situated in Thingalur Village, SathyamangalamTaluk, Erode District as illegal and ultra vires in so far as thepetitioner is concerned (WP.No.12761/99).

15. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 as illegal, ultravires. WP.Nos.12920 to 12922/99, 14698,14699, 15831.

16. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing NA.KA.2022/97/A,1767/97/A, 1802/97/E MINES, NA.KA.2022/97/A, 1767/97/A 1802/97/E,Mines dated 26.6.99, 21.6.99, 24.6.99, 24.6.99 in respect of thepetitioner's lease hold quarry measuring 2-02-5 Hectares, 1-21-5, 0-81-0, 1-00-0 Hectares comprised in Survey S.F.Nos.609/A[Part], 1[Part], 243[Part], 38 situated in Nagojanahalli Village, PochampalliTaluk, Dharmapuri District, Madakkal Village, Denkanikottai Taluk,Dharmapuri District, Marichettihalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk,Dharmapuri District, Peddapampatty Village, Pochampalli Taluk,Dharmapuri District as illegal, Ultravires respectively WP.Nos.13204to 13207/99.

17. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Na.Ka.1758/97 A,439/99/C, 2465/96/C, 2110/97/A, 1804/97 1A Mines dated 24.6.99,28.6.99, 28.6.99, 21.6.99, 24.6.99 in respect of the petitioner'slease hold quarry measuring 4-05-0, 5.25[2-12-5], 9.71[3-93-0], 2-0205, 0-40-5 Hectares comprised in Survey S.F.Nos.401, 199[PortionA] 197, 629[Part] 57/1 part situated in Chandarapalli Village,Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District Sellaguddapatti Village,Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District Nagamangalam Village,Thenkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District Jagadevipalayam Village,Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District as illegal, Ultra viresrespectively WP.No.13571 to 13575/99.

18. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Na.Ka.1766/97/A,2112/97/A, 1973/97/AA, 2023/97/AA, 1805/97/A, Mines dated 21.6.99,24.6.99, 21.6.99, 21.6.99, 26.6.99 in respect of the petitioner'slease hold quarry totally measuring 4.00 Acres [1.62.0 Hectares], 5acres [2.02.5 Hectares], 0.81.0 Hectares, 1.62.0, 1.62.0 Hectarescomprised in Survey S.F.No.374/5 [part], 629[part], 629[part], 201part, 95 part, situates in Jakkeri Village, Denkanikottai Taluk,Nagamangalam village, Nagamangalam Village, Jakkeri Village,Modikuppam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District asillegal ultravires respectively [WP.Nos.13718, 13719 and 13895 to13897/99];

19. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98andtheOrderofthe2[nd]RespondentinNa.Ka.768/Minerals/98/4, 768/Minerals/98/2, dated 15.10.98 and2.7.99 as illegal ultravires.WP.Nos.13976 and 13977/99.

20. 8 E of the Tami Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms.No.603/Industries [MMC-1] Department dated17.9.98 and the Order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Na.Ka.1760/97/A,1761/97/A, 1806/97/A[Mines] dt. 24.6.99, 26.6.99, 24.6.99 in respectof the petitioner's lease hold quarry measuring 0.61.0 hectares, 2acres [0.81.0] hectares, 2 acres [0.81.0 Hectares] comprised inSurvey SF Nos.216/9, part, 271 part, situated in ChendarapalliVilalge, Kaveripattinam Village, Kaveripattinam Village, KrishnagiriTaluk, Dharmapuri District as illegal ultravires WP.Nos.14086 to14088/99.

21. 8-E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O. Ms. NO. 603/Industries (MMC-1) Department dated17.09.1998 and the order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Na. Ka. NO.1970/97A 1972/97/A mines dated 21.06.1999 in respect of the

Petitioners lease hold quarry measuring 10.00 acares, 4-05-0, 4-04-0Hectares comprised in Survey SF NO. 629 past situated inNagamangalam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District asillegal ultra vires WP NOS. 14156 and 14157/99

22. 8E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O. Ms. NO. 603 Industries (MMC 1) Department Dated17.09.1998 and the order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Na. Ka. No.1803/97/A, 1343/99/C 680/98/c, 1764/97/e, 1484/97/B, 2021/97/B Minesdated 24.06.1999 , 28.06.1999, 26.6.1999, 25.06.1999, 21.06.1999,21.6.1999, in respect of the petitioners lease hold quarry measuring3.00 Acres (1-21-5,) 0-25-5 Hectares, 0-81-0, 1-21-5, 1-21-5, 0-41-0Hectares comprised in Survey S.F. NO. 141 oart, 15/3, 609/A Part,15/1, 629 part 629 (part) situated in Chendrapalli Village,Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Vilangamudi Village,PochampalliTaluk,Nagarjunahalli,VillageKrishnagiriTaluk.Vilangumudi Village, Pochampalli Taluk, Nagamangalam Village,Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District as illegal ultra virusrespectively WP NOS. 14445, 14464 to 14468/99

23.8 E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O. Ms. NO. 603 Industries (MMC 1) Department Dated17.09.1998 and the order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing Na. Ka. No.2113/97/A, 1346/99/AA (Mines) dated 21.06.1999, 25.06.1999 inrespect of the petitioners lease hold quarry measuring 0-81-0-Hectares, 1-00 acre comprised in Survey SF NO. 629, 391 PARTSITUATED in Nagamangalam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, DharmapuriDistrict, Thatrahalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk as illegalultravirues WP NOS. 14861 and 16747/99

24.8 E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 and theorder of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing ROC NO. 732/99 Minese dated23.10.199 in respect of the petitioner's lease hold quarry measuring4-05-0 Hectares.comprised in RS NO. 1/1 (Part) situated in MarginiVillage Salem District as illegal ultravires WP NO. 17654/99

25. 8 E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 asintroduced by G.O. Ms. No. 603 Industry dated 17.09.1998 and theproceedings of the 2[nd] Respondent made in ROC NO. 732/99 Minese dated23.10.199 as unconstitutional and illegal WP NO. 17726/99

26. 8 E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 asintroduced by G.O. Ms. No. 603 Industtird (MMC-1) Department dated

17.09.1998 and the order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing ROC NO.1763/97/A/Minerals 2128/97/B/ Minerals dated dated 1.7.1999,24.06.1999 in respect of survey No. 288/1 measuring 0-81-0, 1-01-0hectares in Jegadevi Palayam, Krishnagiri Taluk, Agalakotai,Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District as illegal ultravirus WPNOS. 17848 and 17849 of 1999.

27. 8 E of the Tamil Nadu Mines Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O. Ms. NO. 603, Industries (MMC-1) Department dated17.09.1998 and the order of the 2[nd] Respondent bearing ROC NO. 732/99Mines C 668/96, 732/99/Mines/C dated 23.10.1999, 23.10.99,19.11.1999, 23.10.1999 in respect of the petitioners lease holdquarry measuring 1-21-5, 1-62-0, Hectares, 2-50, Acres, 0.40.5Hectares comprised in RS NO. 3 (Part) 89/3, 587/1, 358 situated inKaveripuram Village Mettur Taluk, Devannagoundanur Village, SankariTaluk, Salem District Makimandalam Village, Katpadi Taluk, VelloreDistrict, Thirumalaipatty Village, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal Districtas illegal ultravirus respectively WP NOS. 18075, 18704, 19204 and19265/99.

28. Rule 8E of the Tamil nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959,as introduced by G.O. Ms. NO. 603 Industries Department dated17.09.1998 and the consequential proceedings of the 2[nd] Respondent inROC NO. 732/99 Mines C dated 23.10.1999 as unconstitutional andillegal in so far as the petitioner is concerned WP NO. 19704/99

29. 8e of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 603, Industries (MMC-1) department dated17.09.1998 and the order of the respondents bearing ROC NO. 732/99,dated 23.10.99, 469/98 (G) dated 29.01.2000, in respect of thepetitioners lease hold quarry measuring 1 acre, 1 acre, 0-56-50Hectares comprised in RS NO. 153/1 SURVEY SF NO. 103/4, 170/1situated in Gudamalai Village Attur Taluk, Devannagounder village,Sankari Taluk, Salem District Ammachathiram Village, Kulathur Taluk,Pudukkotai District illegal ultravires respectively WP NOS.20322/99397/2000, 2976/2000

30. 8E of the Tami nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 603/Industries (MMC,1) Department dated17.9.1998 and the order of the second respondent bearing Na. Ka.No.1348/99/Aa/(Mines) dated 25.6.99 in respect of the petitioner'slease hold quarry measuring 4-04-5 Hectares comprised inSurvey.No.642(part) situated in Nagojanahalli Village, ultra vires(WP.No.8679/00).

31.8E of the Tamil nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 asintroduced by G.O. Ms. NO. 603 Industries (MMC-1) Department dated 17.09.1998 and the proceedings of the 2[nd] Respondent made in ROC NO.732/99 Mines-C dated 23.10.1999 as constitutional and illegal WP NO.10535/00

32. 8-E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 asintroduced by G.O.Ms.No.603 Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated17.9.1998 and the order of the 2nd respondent bearing NA.Ka.D.464/95dated 24.5.2000 in respect of the petitioners lease hold quarrymeasuring 3.00 acres comprised in Survey No.239 (Part) situated inThogamalai Village, Kulithalai Tk, Karur Dt as illegal ultra viresW.P.No.10724/2000.

33. 8-E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 asintroduced by G.O.Ms.No.603 Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated17.9.1998 and the order of the 2nd respondent bearingNA.Ka.D.496/95, 495. 560/95 dated 24.5.2000 , 1.6.2000 in respectof the petitioners lease hold quarry measuring 2.00 acres comprisedin Survey No.441/4 and 442 part , 239 part, 239 part situated inKahugar Village, Thogamalai Village, Thogamalai Village, KulithalaiTk, Karur Dt. (Formerly Tiruchy Dt) as illegal ultraviresrespectively W.P.Nos.15426 to 15428/2000.

34. 8-E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 asintroduced by G.O.Ms.No.603 Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated17.9.1998 and the order of the 2nd respondent made inRef.No.NA.Ka.D/559/95, 1974/97 B minerals 21.6.199 dated 1.6.2000 ,dated 21.6.1999 as unconstitutional and illegal W.P.No.15697/2000,20200/2000.

35. 8-E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 asintroduced by G.O.Ms.No.603 Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated17.9.1998 and the order of the 2nd respondent bearing R.O.C.No.Mines 1495/98/A, R.C.No.A/G & M/3429/03 R.C.No.A/G & M/ / 3426/03dated 9.7.04, 29.7.04 in respect respect of the petitioners leasehold quarry measuring 0-46-5, 1-30-5, 5-02-0, Hectares comprised inSurveyS.F.No.84/1,S.No.47/4,R.S.No.03situatedinSakkarapanickanur Village, Usilampatti Tk, Madurai District, KunnamVillage, Vanur Tk Villupuram District, Semangalam Village, Vanur Tk,Villupuram District as illegal ultravires W.P.Nos. 1359/01,20815/04, 22593/04, respectively.

36. 8-E of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 asintroduced by G.O.Ms.No.603 Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated17.9.1998 and the Demand notice of the 2nd respondent made in ROCNO. Mines/ 2206/97 dated 26.7.2004 as unconstitutional and illegalW.P.NO.23762/04.

II. Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2ndrespondent dated 15.10.1998 having Ref No. Na.Ka.No.768/Mines/98-3and 5 in WP.20170/98 and quash the same (WP.no.20168/98)

calling for the records of the 3rd respondent dated 17.8.1999 havingRef.Na.Ka.22/99/(A)/Mines and quash the same and consequently directthe respondents to permit the petitioner to quarry black granitesover an extent of 0.40.5 Hecatres acres in Government Poromboke landin S.No.285 Adhikarapatti Village, Pappireddy Patti Taluk,Dharmapuri District as per terms and conditions contained in leasedeed executed pursuant to G.O.3 (D) No.181 dated 27.6.1995.(WP.No.18689/2000)

2. dated 15.10.1998 having ref No.Na.Ka.No.768/Mines/98-6 and quashthe same WP.No.20172/98

3. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2ndrespondent dated 18.12.1998 having ref A/G&M/1612/98-1 and quash thesame WP.No.1925/99.

4. Ref.No.81650/98/X-2 Mines dated 28.10.1998 quash the sameWP.No.19396/98.

5. Order of the Collector of Madurai, Madurai [2[nd] respondent] inROC.No.Mines.1495/98 dt. 19.2.99 quash the same, WP.No.7788/99,8653/99.

6. order passed by the 2[nd] respondent in Na.Ka.No.1827/97/132130/97/C.1, 2018/97/A.1 Mines dated 21.6.99, 24.6.99 and 24.6.99and quash the same. WP.Nos.12917 to 12919/99.

7.2[nd]respondentdated21.6.99havingref.No.NaKa.No.1971/97/Aa.Mines and quash the same. WP.No.13132/99.

8. 2[nd] Respondent dt. 28.5.99 having Ref.No.Na Ka.No.22/99/Mines andquash the same. WP.No.13691/99.

9. 2[nd] Respondent dated 02.07.1999 and 24.06.1999, 24.06.99 havingref No. Na. Ka. NO, 768/Mines/98-1 1344/99/A(Mines), 1762/97-A. Andquash the same WP 14130, 14132, 14134/99.

11. the Second Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1807/97 A Mines 1485/99 CMines, and quash the same WP NOS. 14696, 14699/9911. 2[nd] Respondent dated 28.05.1999 having ref No. Na. Ka.021/99/Vu.Mines and quash the same WP NO. 14191/99.

12. the 3[rd] Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1051/97/C (Mines) dated24.06.1999 and quash the same WP NO. 15830/99.

13. 1[st] Respondent herein in Roc. No. 1346/99 (A) Mines, dated18.10.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein toissue transport permit in favour of the petitioner herein fortransporting granite blocks quarried in survey No. 391 partThatratalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk to the place of his choice WPNO. 18698/99

14. 2[nd] Respondent dated 17.08.1999 having ref NO. Na. Ka.NO. 21/99(Aa Mines) and quash the same WP NO.18324/99 and

15. 2[nd] Respondent dated 23.10.1999 having ref NO. 732/99/ Mines-Cand quash the same WP NO. 20496/99. respectively.

III. Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issued a writ of Mndamus directing the respondent to forbearfrom interfering with the petitioners right to quarry and transport1. the mineral on payment of necessary seignorage from granitequarry measuring 4-05-0, 1-29-6, 0-56-50,Hecatures comprised insurvey No. 401, 223 and 170/1 (part) situated in ChendrapalliVillagem Krishnagiri Taluk Dharmapuri District Ariyur Village,Namakkal Taluk, Nammal District, Ammachathiram Village, KulathurTaluk, Pudukottai District will the lease period is over (WP NO.10265/00, 10656 and 10657/00)

2. the mineral on payment of necessary seignorage from granitequarry measuring 2.50 Acres comprised in S.No.587/1 of MakimandalamVillage, Walajoha Tk, Vellore Dt. (Formerly N.A. Dt. till the leaseperiod is over W.P.10881/2000

3. 1[st] Respondent herein in Roc. No. 1346/99 (A) Mines, dated18.10.1999 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein toissue transport permit in favour of the petitioner herein fortransporting granite blocks quarried in survey No. 391 partThatratalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk to the place of his choice WPNO. 18698/99

4. granite process from granite quarry measuing 5-02-0 Hectarescomprised in Survey R.S.No.03 situated in Semangalam, Village, VanurTk, Villupuram District, W.P.20428/04.

5. granite quarry measuring 2.02.5, 0.18.0 hectares comprised inSurvey No.629 (Part) situated in Nagamangalam Village, Denkanikottai Tk, Krishnagiri Dt. (Formerly Dharamapuri Dt) respectivelyw.P.No.27927 & 27928/04) respectively.

For Petitioners: Mr.V.T. Gopalan Senior Counsel Mr.V.R. Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mr.K. Ramakrishna Reddy & Mr.P. Kalpa Reddy Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Mr.S. Silambanan For Respondents: Mr.R. Viduthalai Advocate General for Mr.R. Thirugnanam Special Govt. PleaderCOMMON JUDGMENTP.K. MISRA, JIn this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who arethe holders of leases granted under the provisions of erstwhile Rule39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") have challenged thevalidity of Rule 8-E, which has been introduced as per G.O.Ms.No.603Industries Department, dated 17.9.1998.

2. First of all it is necessary to have a bird's eye viewof the various Constitutional and statutory provisions.

Entry 54 of List I of 7[th] Schedule of the Constitution of Indiais to the following effect :-"54. Regulation of mines and mineral development tothe extent to which such regulation and development underthe control of the Union is declared by Parliament by lawto be expedient in the public interest."Entry 23 of List II of 7[th] Schedule of the Constitution is to thefollowing effect :-"23. Regulation of mines and mineral developmentsubject to the provisions of List I with respect toregulation and development under the control of the Union."

3. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") Act No.67 of 1957, is aCentral Act to provide for development and regulation of mines and

minerals under the control of Union. Under Section 2 of the Actfollowing declaration as to the expediency of Union Control has beenmade:- "2. Declaration as to the expediency of Union control- It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the publicinterest that the Union should take under its control theregulation of mines and the development of minerals to theextent hereinafter provided."

Section 3 of the Act contains the definition clause. As perSection 3(a), "minerals" include all minerals except mineral oils.As per Section 3(e), "minor minerals" means building stones, gravel,ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribedpurposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, bynotification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral.

Under Section 3(c) "mining lease" means a lease granted for thepurpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-leasegranted for such purpose.

As per the definition of "minor minerals" and the notificationsissued by the Central Government under Section 3(e) of the Act,granite and other decorative stones with which we are concerned inthe present batch of cases, are minor minerals.As per Section 4 of the Act, no person shall undertake any minoroperation in any area except under and in accordance with the termsand conditions of a mining lease granted under the Act and the Rulesmade thereunder. Under sub-Section (2) no mining lease shall begranted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Actand the Rules made thereunder.

4. Section 15 empowers the State Government to make Rulesin respect of minor minerals. The relevant provisions of Section 15are extracted hereunder :- “15. Power of State Governments to make rules inrespect of minor minerals- (1) The State Government may, bynotification in the Official Gazette, make rules forregulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases orother mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals andfor purposes connected therewith.

(1A) In particular and without prejudice to thegenerality of the foregoing power, such rules may providefor all or any of the following matters,namely :- (a) the person by whom and the manner in which,applications for quarry leases, mining leases or othermineral concessions may be made and the fees to be paidtherefor;

...

(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority by which quarry leases, miningleases or other mineral concessions may be granted orrenewed; (e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, miningleases or other mineral concessions;

...

(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees,dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within whichand the manner in which these shall be payable;

...

(Incidentally it may be noted that Section 15(1A) was inserted byamendment as per Central Act 37 of 1986).

(2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), anyrules made by a State Government regulating the grant ofquarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessionsin respect of minor minerals which are in force immediatelybefore the commencement of this Act shall continue inforce.

(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineralconcession granted under any rule made under sub-section(1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more inrespect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or byhis agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee atthe rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framedby the State Government in respect of minor minerals;Provided that the State Government shall not enhancethe rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any minormineral for more than once during any period of threeyears.”

(The expression "or dead rent, whichever is more" was inserted byamendment vide Central Act 37 of 1986)

5. By virtue of such rule making power, the Tamil NaduGovernment has framed Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1959. Such Rules are being amended by the State Government fromtime to time. To appreciate the questions involved, it is necessaryto take a journey back in time in order to notice the various Rulesapplicable at different times. Till 1972 quarry leases in Governmentlands for black granites and decorative stones were being grantedthrough public auction as per the provisions of the Rules thenexisting. Subsequently, however, by G.O.Ms.No.1932 dated16.12.1972, Rule 8-A containing several clauses and sub-clauses wasinserted by amendment making specific provisions relating to leasein respect of granite. However, a total ban on grant of lease forquarrying black granites by private persons was imposed vide Rule 8-C, which was introduced in 1977, but such ban was subsequently lifted in 1988 vide G.O.Ms.No.1273 dated 9.12.1988 and theprovisions contained in Rule 8-A became operational for grantingleases for industries. Such provisions at that stage contemplatedlevy of dead rent or seigniorage fee, whichever was greater. In1989, vide G.O.Ms.No.608 dated 2.9.1989, tender system wasintroduced with three main objectives, namely, (1) to identify thegrantee of lease by a transparent method without giving room forarbitrariness (2) to get additional revenue to the State's exchequerand (3) to encourage setting up of industry of granite cutting andpolishing within the State. Subsequently, a ban was imposed forquarrying granites in Government lands by private persons inG.O.Ms.No.214 dated 10.6.1992, except to those who were alreadyissued with letter of commitment. Thereafter Rule 39 was introducedas per G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 8.3.1993, which is extracted hereunder :- "39. Powers of State Government to grant or renewquarry lease or permission, etc. in special cases - Nothingcontained in these rules, the State Government, if in anycase, are of opinion that in the interest of mineraldevelopment and in the public interest it is necessary sodo so, they may, by order and for reasons to be recorded:(a) grant or renew a lease or permission to quarry any mineral;(b) allow the working of any quarry for quarrying any mineral;on terms and conditions different from those laid down inthose rules."

6. The petitioners are the grantees of such leases underRule 39. Such leases were granted for a period of 10 years. Rule39 was subsequently omitted by G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 27.6.1996.Subsequently, Rule 8-A has been substituted by G.O.Ms.No.103 dated13.7.1996. The salient feature of such rule relating to lease ofquarries to private persons in respect of granite is the settlementof leases on the basis of tender-cum-auction procedure.

7. While the matter stood thus, the Rules were amended byintroducing Rule 8-E vide G.O.Ms.No.603 dated 17.9.1998, which isunder challenge.

8. A bare reading of the Rule 8-E makes the followingaspects clear :-

(1) Such rule relates to all lessees who are granted with leasesunder the erstwhile rule 39 and where leases are still in force.

(2) Such lessees are required to pay one time lease amount.(3) The Collector of the District shall fix the one-time leaseamount as per the principle laid down in the Rules.

(4) The lease amount fixed shall be proportionate to the extentof the lease-hold land and the period of the lease.

(5) The one-time lease amount shall be paid within sixty days ofthe date of receipt of demand notice.

(6) On failure to pay, the lease is deemed to be cancelled.

8.1 The principle for fixing the amount is that the granteeunder Rule 39 shall pay the highest lease amount paid by any lesseeunder the tender system introduced in Rule 8-A on 2.9.1989 or underthe tender-cum-auction system introduced in Rule 8-A on 13.7.1996,whichever is greater, in respect of same or similar type of mineralin the same taluk. If there is no such quarry with same or similartype of mineral within the same taluk, highest lease amount inrespect of the same or similar type of mineral in the adjoiningtaluk in the same district or the adjoining taluk of an adjoiningdistrict, whichever is greater, shall be fixed as the lease amount.If, however, there is no such quarry in the adjoining taluk, theamount in respect of any other quarry with the same or similar typeof mineral within the district, shall be the amount payable.Lastly, if there is no such quarry in such district, the leaseamount in respect of quarry of similar description in the adjoiningdistrict shall be considered as the basis. The lease amount thusfixed shall be proportionate to the extent of the leasehold grantedand the period of the lease. Such one time lease amount is requiredto be paid within sixty days from the date of receipt of the demandnotice, where such lessee fails to pay the one time lease amountwithin the stipulated time indicated in the demand notice, thelease is deemed to have been cancelled for the said default on theexpiry of sixty days notice period and thereafter only the authorityconcerned is required to formally declare that the lease is deemedto have been cancelled and to communicate the same.

9. The attack on such Rules has been mounted through SeniorCounsels Mr.V.T. Gopalan, Mr.V.R. Reddy and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram,mainly on the following grounds :-

(1) As per the provisions contained in the Act, a lessee is onlyrequired to pay royalty or dead rent whichever is more and sinceroyalty is being paid in the shape of seigniorage fee and otherwisedead rent is being charged, there is no authority to direct paymentof any other amount, more particularly when the provisions containedin the Act do not contemplate payment of any other amount, save andexcept surface rent, royalty or dead rent and, at any rateintroduction of any Rule is ultra vires of Section 15 of the Act,more particularly Section 15(3).

(2) Imposition of excess levy and import is likely to impede thedevelopment of minerals, which is the prime object of the statuteand, therefore, the Rule making power must be exercised in a mannerconsistent with the prime object of the Act.

(3) Even assuming that the State Government has power to amendthe Rule introducing payment of certain amount as one-time payment,the impugned G.O., which has the effect of unilaterally affectingthe leases already granted for a period of 10 years before 1995,cannot be adversely affected as the subordinate legislation cannottake away by retrospective operation, the right already vested, inthe absence of any specific provision to that effect in the parentstatute authorising the rule making authority to make rules withretrospective effect.

(4) The basis for fixing the amount payable is also arbitraryand the Government is estopped from enhancing the liability of theleaseholder to pay any additional amount.

10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State,it has been stated that even though the lessees on the basis ofG.O.Ms.No.608 dated 2.9.1989 were required to pay as per the tenderprocedure and, the lessees after 13.7.1996 are required to paytender amount on the basis of tender-cum-auction procedure, thelessees under the erstwhile Rule 39 had not paid any such amount andto make good the loss of revenue to the State, it was decided inpublic interest that one time lease amount should be collected fromthe lessees quarrying granite in Government ands by introducing Rule8-E. The amount payable has been directed to be assessed by takinginto account the amount payable in respect of quarry relating tosame or similar mineral in the same taluk, adjoining taluk or theadjoining district because it is presumed that the mineral inquarries in such adjoining taluk or adjoining district, would be ofsimilar quality and mine area would contain similar quantity and,therefore, it cannot be said that the basis of assessment which areintroduced subsequently have no reasonable nexus. It is stated thatthe rule making power is not confined to making rules for collectionof royalty and dead rent but also authorises the Government to framerules relating to rent, charges, fine, etc., and provision is madewithin the rule making power and does not contravene any provisionof the Act either specifically or even by implication. In the leasedeed in respect of the grantees it has been specifically indicatedthat the lessee is "to bear, pay and discharge all existing andfuture rates, taxes, assessments, duties, impositions, outgoings,burdens whatsoever imposed or charged upon the demised premises orthe produce thereof or the land assessment and the lease amount ordead rent hereby reserved or upon the owner or occupier in respectthereof or payable by either in respect thereof except such chargesor impositions as the case is or may hereby be by law exemptedfrom". It is further stated that the impugned provision only makesthe condition of the lease in respect of the lessees under Rule 39at par with lessees under Rule 8-A. The Supreme Court whileupholding the validity of Rule 39, had observed that the rule hadbeen framed in the greater interest of mineral development in theState and for better revenue earning from such developmental operation and the omission made by the previous Government in notclaiming one time lease amount had resulted in loss of revenue tothe State instead of better revenue earning and, therefore, the ruleshould not be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable.

11. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions and countercontentions, the following questions arise for determination :-

(1) Whether the Government has power to introduce or amend anyrule providing for payment of lease amount by way of tender ortender-cum-auction ?

(2) Even assuming that the Government has such power, whethersuch rule can be framed so as to affect the essential conditions ofany existing lease, calling upon such lessees to pay any leaseamount, which was not contemplated at the time of original grant ?

(3) Whether the basis of assessment as indicated, is arbitrary ?

12. So far as the first question is concerned, it has beencontended by learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.T. Gopalan that thecorresponding provisions applicable to the Central Government inSections 5 to 13, and more particularly under the Rules framed bythe Central Government, do not envisage payment of any lease amountand such provisions envisage payment only of royalty or dead rent,whichever is more. In this connection, Mr.V.T. Gopalan hasemphasised on the provisions contained in Section 15(3). It issubmitted by him that Section 15(3) controls the ambit of the rulemaking power of the State Government. This submission is alsobolstered by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.R. Reddy.

13. Section 14 of the Act specifically contemplates thatthe provisions contained in Section 5 to 13 shall not apply toquarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respectof minor minerals. Therefore, the mere fact that the CentralGovernment in respect of minerals other than the minor minerals doesnot charge any amount except royalty or dead rent, is not a factorlimiting the power of the State Government to make rules providingfor payment of lease amount. Even though the State Government mayseek inspiration from the provisions contained in the Rules made bythe Central Government, in the absence of any specific provision,the State Government is not required to copy the rules made by theCentral Government. However, if the rules made by the StateGovernment offend the provisions contained in the Act, to thatextent the Rules may not be operative.

14. Under Section 15(1), the State Government is empoweredto make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases and miningleases and other mineral concessions and for the purposes connectedtherewith. Such rule making power appears to be quite wide in itsambit. Subsequently, introduced Section 15(1A) specifies that the

rules framed by the State Government may provide for all or any ofthe matters indicated. It is to be noticed that 15(1A) is withoutprejudice to the generality of the power contained in Section 15(1)of the Act. Therefore, particular aspects highlighted in 15(1A) canonly be considered to be illustrative of the rule making power ofthe State Government and not necessarily exhaustive. Moreover,Section 15(1A)(d) relates to terms on which, and the conditionssubject to which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineralconcessions may be granted. Obviously the terms and conditions mayenvisage payment of any amount to the State for the grant of lease.Similarly, Section 15(1A)(g) relates to fixing and collectionof rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and themanner in which they shall be payable. Since royalty and dead renthave been specifically included, it is obvious that the expression"collection of rent" cannot be equated with collection of royalty orcollection of dead rent. Since it is assumed that the StateGovernment is the owner of the minor minerals for parting with itsrights and for granting the privilege of exploiting such minorminerals, the State Government can fix the consideration amount forwhich such mines can be settled with the lessee. It is of coursetrue that the main purpose of the Act is to provide for developmentand regulation of the mines and minerals. However, it does not meanthat while making provisions for such development, the StateGovernment cannot make provisions for collection of amount inrespect of minerals found in the land belonging to the StateGovernment.

15. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsels onbehalf of the petitioners that Section 15(3) only contemplatespayment of royalty or dead rent, and therefore no other amount canbe claimed cannot be countenanced. Section 15(3) only contemplatesthe minimum which is required to be provided. In other words,holder of mining lease is at least required to pay royalty or deadrent whichever is more. Obviously the rules to be framed by theState Government must include provisions relating to payment ofroyalty or dead rent by the lessee. This, however, does notcircumscribe the ambit and the width of the rule making powercontained in Section 15(1), 15(1A)(d) and 15(1A)(g). The amountfixed as lease amount can be considered as another form ofcollection of rent or part of terms and conditions for the lease.

16. The next question is whether the rule making authoritycould have framed rules so as to alter the conditions of theexisting leases to their detriment. It is contended by the learnedSenior Counsels appearing for the petitioners that the rule makingpower, which is a form of subordinate legislation, cannot beexercised in a manner retrospectively affecting the vested rights.It has been submitted by them that once the lease was granted in exercise of power under Rule 39, subject to certain terms andconditions, the lessees acquired a vested right of work in themines, subject to the provisions contained in the Rules and theconditions indicated in the lease deed and the essential conditionsof such lease could not have been subsequently unilaterally changedto the detriment of the grantees.

17. Mr.V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel, in order tobolster such contention has placed reliance upon the decision of theSupreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 1436 (BAIJNATH KEDIA ETC., v.THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS). In the said case, one Jyoti PrakashPandey has obtained a registered lease to quarry stone ballast,boulders and chips from the lands belonging to intermediary and theex-landlords had ceased to have any interest from the date ofvesting. By operation of Section 10(1) of the Land Reforms Act, theState of Bihar become lessor, which also subsequently recognised theright of the person concerned and called upon such person to payrent from the date of vesting till April , 1965 at the rate fixed inthe original lease. Subsequently, however, another letter wasissued asking for payment of rent at a higher rate on the basis ofthe rates indicated by the Bihar Minor Mineral Concessions Rules,1964, which came into force with effect from 27.10.1964. Rule20(1) contemplated payment of dead rent, royalty and surface rent atthe rates specified in Schedule I and Schedule II. Rule 20(2)provided "On and from the date of commencement of these rules, theprovisions of sub-rule (1) shall also apply to leases granted orrenewed prior to the date of such commencement and subsisting onsuch date". Similarly, Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act wasamended by providing that the terms and conditions in regard to thelease of minor minerals stands substituted by the correspondingterms and conditions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules.Additional demand and the liability to pay on the basis of theaforesaid provisions was challenged. However, such petition wasrejected by the High Court in the decision reported in AIR 1968Patna 50 and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. Thecontention raised before the Supreme Court on amendment of Section10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was that it was ultra vires andRule 20(2) was also beyond the competence of the State Government assuch rule making power of its own force cannot reach mining leasesgranted in 1955.

18. So far as lack of legislative competence to amendSection 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is concerned, it wasobserved by the Supreme Court that in view of declaration containedin Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)Act, 1957, such amendment was beyond the legislative competence asthe field was already occupied by the Central Act. So far as Rule20(2) was concerned, it was observed :-

21. This leaves for consideration the second sub-ruleadded to Rule 20 in December, 1964 by the State Government.It will be noticed that the rule as it stood previouslyapplied prospectively to all leases which came to beexecuted after the promulgation of the rules. The secondsub-rule made applicable those provisions to all leasessubsisting on the date of the promulgation of the rules.The short question is whether the rules could operate onleases in existence prior to their enactment without theauthority of a competent legislature. Vested rights cannotbe taken away except under authority of law and mere rule-making power without the support of a legislative enactmentis not capable of achieving such an end. There being twolegislatures to consider, namely, Parliament and the StateLegislature we have first to decide which legislature wouldbe competent to grant such power.

22. We have already held that the whole of thelegislative field was covered by the Parliamentarydeclaration read with the provisions of Act 67 of 1957,particularly S. 15. We have also held that entry 23 of ListII was to that extent cut down by entry 54 of List I. Thewhole of the topic of minor minerals became a Unionsubject. The Union Parliament allowed rules to be made butthat did not recreate a scope for legislation at the Statelevel. Therefore, if the old leases were to be modified alegislative enactment by Parliament on the lines of S. 16of Act 67 of 1957 was necessary. The place of such a lawcould not be taken by legislation by the State Legislatureas it purported to do by enacting the second Proviso to S.10 of the Land Reforms Act. It will further be seen thatParliament in S. 4 of Act 67 of 1957 created an express baralthough S. 4 was not applicable to minor minerals. WhetherS. 4 was intended to apply to minor minerals as well or anypart of it applies to minor minerals are questions wecannot consider in view of the clear declaration in Section14 of Act 67 of 1957 that the provisions of Ss. 4-13(inclusive) do not apply. Therefore, there does not existany prohibition such as is to be found in Sec. 4 (1),Proviso in respect of minor minerals. Although Section 16applies to minor minerals it only permits modification ofmining leases granted before October 25, 1949. In regard toleases of minor minerals executed between this date andDecember 1964 when R. 20 (1) was enacted, there is noprovision of law which enables the terms of existing leasesto be altered. A mere rule is not sufficient....

24. The contention was that modification of existingleases was a separate topic altogether and was not coveredby S. 15 of Act 67 of 1957. Therefore if Parliament had not said anything on the subject the field was open to theState Legislature. The other side pointed to the words 'andfor purposes connected therewith' in S. 15 and contendedthat those words were sufficiently wide to take inmodification of leases. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha's argument isunfortunately not tenable in view of the two rulings ofthis Court. On the basis of those rulings we have held thatthe entire legislative field in relation to minor mineralshad been withdrawn from the State Legislature. We have alsoheld that vested rights could only be taken away by lawmade by a competent legislature. Mere rule-making power ofthe State Government was not able to reach them. Theauthority to do so must, therefore, have emanated forParliament. The existing provision related to regulation ofleases and matters connected therewith to be granted infuture and not for alteration of the terms of leases whichwere in existence before Act 67 of 1957. For that speciallegislative provision was necessary. As no suchparliamentary law had been passed the second sub-rule to R.20 was ineffective. It could not derive sustenance from thesecond Proviso to S. 10 (2) of the Land Reforms Act sincethat proviso was not validity enacted."(Emphasissupplied)

19. Relying upon such decision, it was contended that theright to quarry lease for 10 years became vested with thepetitioners on and from the date of the lease agreement and byretrospectively calling upon such persons to pay certain amount,which was not at all contemplated at the time when the lease wasgranted (as distinguished from enhancement of seigniorage fee ordead rent), was beyond the rule making power in the absence of anystatutory provision authorising the State Government to frame ruleswith retrospective effect so as to affect the existing rights.

20. Mr.V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel has fairlybrought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported inAIR 1986 SC 1323 (D.K. TRIVEDI AND SONS AND OTHERS v. STATE OFGUJARAT AND OTHERS), wherein it was observed :-

"40. The grant of a mining lease would thus providefor the consideration for such grant in the shape ofsurface rent, dead rent and royalty. The power to makerules for regulating the grant of such leases would,therefore, include the power to fix the considerationpayable by the lessee to the lessor in the shape ofordinary rent or surface rent, dead rent and royalty. Ifthis were not so, it would lead to the absurd result thatwhen the Government grants a mining lease, it is grantedgratis to a person who wants to extract minerals and profit from them. Rules for regulating the grant of mining leasescannot be confined merely to rules providing for the formin which applications for such leases are to be made, thefactors to be taken into account in granting or refusingsuch applications and other cognate matters. Such rulesmust necessarily include provisions with respect to theconsideration for the grant. Under S. 15(1), therefore, theState Governments have the power to make rules providingfor payment of surface rent, dead rent and royalty by thelessee to the Government.

...

45. A proper reading of sub-sec. (3) of S. 15 showsthat it does not confer any power upon the StateGovernments to make rules with respect to royalty. Royaltyis payable by the holder of a quarry lease or mining leaseor other mineral concession granted under rules made undersub-sec. (1) of, S. 15. What sub-sec. (3) does is to makesuch holder liable to pay royalty in respect of minorminerals removed or consumed not only by him but also byhis agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee. Itthus casts a vicarious liability upon such holder to payroyalty in respect of the acts of persons other thanhimself. The very fact that under sub-sec. (3) theliability of such holder is to pay, royalty "at the rateprescribed for the time being in the rules framed by theState Government in respect of minor minerals" shows thatthe prescribing of the rate of royalty in respect of minorminerals is to be done under the rule-making power of theState Governments which is to be found in sub-sec. (1) ofS. 15. Yet another purpose of enacting sub-sec. (3) is tobe found in the proviso to that sub-section which prohibitsthe State Government from enhancing the rate of royalty inrespect of any minor mineral for more than once during anyperiod of four years. ...

47. The next contention was that though under S. 15(1)the State Governments may have the power to make rulesproviding for payment of royalty and dead rent, sub-sec.(3) showed that such power did not extend to amending therules so as to enhance the rate of dead rent. Thesubmission in this behalf was that the power to enhance therate of royalty by amending the rules was expresslyprovided for in sub-sec. (3) by the use of the words "atthe rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framedby the State Government in respect of minor minerals" butthere was no such. provision in Sec. 15 with respect todead rent. We are unable to accept this submission. Rulesunder S. 15(1), though made by the State Governments, arerules made under a Central Act and the provisions of theGeneral Clauses Act. 1897, apply to such rules. Under S. 21

of the General Clauses Act, where by any Central Act, apower to make rules is conferred, then that power includesa power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to thelike sanction and conditions if any, to add to, amend, varyor rescind any rules so made. The power to amend the rulesis therefore, comprehended within the power to make rulesand as S. 15(1) confers upon the State Governments thepower to make rules providing for payment of dead rent androyalty, it also confers upon the State Governments thepower to amend those rules so as to alter the rates ofroyalty and dead rent so prescribed, either by enhancing orreducing such rates. The source of the power to enhance therate of royalty is not contained in sub-sec. (3) of S. 15as submitted at the Bar. As pointed out earlier, thepurpose of inserting the said sub-sec. in S. 15 withretrospective effect was entirely different one.”

21. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted by relying uponthe decision reported in AIR 1988 Karnataka 34 (STATE OF KARNATAKAv. K.M. MADHUSUDHAN), that the later decision of the Supreme Courtin AIR 1986 SC 1323 (cited supra) cannot be followed in preferenceto the Constitution Bench decision in AIR 1970 SC 1436 (citedsupra). In AIR 1988 Karnataka 34, it was observed :- "9. This brings us to the next question as to theeffect of the observations of their Lordships in Trivedi'scase which have been reproduced above, that the power tomake rules under S.15(1) would include the power to enhancethe rate of dead rent during the subsistence of the leases.Apparently these observations are contrary to the viewenunciated in Baijanath's case (AIR 1970 SC 1436) whereinit has been held that the subordinate legislation cannotaffect the vested rights. In view of this apparent conflictwe have to find out as to which view should ' be followed. ...

In view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Courtthe view in Baijnath's case being of a larger Bench has tobe preferred over the view in Trivedi's case which is of asmaller Bench. In this view of the matter, following thelaw laid down in Baijnath's case we hold that the power tofix the rate of dead rent is a subordinate legislativepower flowing from Sub-S. (1) of S.15, that the revisedrate cannot be made applicable to the lease deeds in whichthe rate of dead rent payable by the concerned lessee hasbeen incorporated, as that is a vested right and thereforecannot be affected by subordinate legislation, and thatthe impugned notification by which the rates of dead rentare revised cannot be enforced against the writ petitioners as they are governed by the rates whichexisted then and which formed one of the conditions ofleases."

22. Though in the first glance it may appear as if there isconflict of opinion between the two decisions, in our consideredopinion, on a careful reading, there is no real conflict. The rulesunder which leases are granted contemplate payment of royalty anddead rent as prescribed from time to time. It goes without sayingthat the contracts or the lease documents are based on suchprovisions contained in the Rules and these envisage that royaltyand dead rent can either be reduced or enhanced. In fact, Section15(3) itself contemplates that royalty and dead rent can beenhanced, but such enhancement can be only once in three years.However, the ratio of decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC1323(cited supra) cannot be made applicable to levy additional leaseamount which was not contemplated at the time of lease. On theother hand, the ratio of the decision in Baijnath's case isapplicable as in the present case, the rule has the effect ofchanging the essential conditions of the lease, even though it wasnot so contemplated at the time of the grant of lease.

23. The question can be looked from another point of view.If at the time of grant of lease under Rule 39 it would have beenindicated that the lease would be granted on the basis of theauction, it is quite possible that the person concerned would nothave applied for taking any such lease. It is not for us toconsider at this stage whether it was prudent on the part of thethen State Government to grant such leases by exercisingdiscretionary power under Rule 39 without insisting upon the tenderprocedure which was in vogue for grant of other normal leases.Whether in a given case the grant of lease itself was arbitrary orimproper is not a matter for consideration before us. Havinggranted lease upon certain terms and conditions under Rule 39, it isnot open to the State Government to turn around at a later stagewhen the leases become operational to impose fresh conditions whichwould go to the very root of the matter. Enhancement of the royaltyor dead rent at least once within a period of three years itself iscontemplated in the statute and the rules as well as the contract.The rule imposing a condition relating to payment of additionalamount was not contemplated. Therefore, making such a rule so as toaffect the existing leases appears to be beyond the jurisdiction ofthe rule making authority.

24. In this connection, the decision of the Supreme Courtreported in (2006) 4 SCC 517 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER v. P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS) cited by Mr.V.R. Reddy may also be noticed. In the said case, by introducing Rule 38-A, whereunder therule making authority created a monopoly relating to sand mining infavour of the State Government, the existing leases were alsoterminated. While upholding the right of the State Government tocreate a monopoly, the Supreme Court observed :-

“26. The old Section 4-A enabled the termination oflease either by the Central Government or by the StateGovernment (in consultation with the other) only for thepurpose of granting a fresh lease in favour of anygovernment company/corporation owned by such Government, ifit was of the opinion that it was expedient in the interestof regulation of mines and mineral development to do so.Though old Section 4-A did not provide for a hearing beforetermination, this Court read such a requirement into thesection. On the other hand, present Section 4-A(substituted by Act 37 of 1986) enables the CentralGovernment to request the State Government to terminate amining lease in regard to any mineral (other than a minormineral) and also enables the State Government to terminatea mining lease in regard to any minor mineral, where theGovernment concerned is of the opinion that it is expedientin the interest of the regulation of mines and mineraldevelopment, preservation of natural environment, controlof floods, prevention of pollution or to avoid danger topublic health or communication or to ensure safety ofbuildings, monuments, or other structures (and alsoadditionally on the ground of conservation of mineralresources or for maintaining safety in the mines in thecase of minerals other than minor minerals) or for suchother purposes, by making an order of prematuretermination. Granting a lease in favour of a governmentcompany/corporation is no longer a purpose for which anexisting lease could be terminated under Section 4-A. Infact, along with substitution of Section 4-A by Act 37 of1986 with effect from 10-2-1987, a new section (Section17-A) was introduced which provides for reservation of anyarea for the purpose of granting of a mining lease to agovernment company or corporation provided such area is notalready held under a mining lease. The ground on which alease could be prematurely terminated under old Section 4-Aand the grounds on which a lease can be terminated undernew Section 4-A are completely different. Though thegrounds for premature termination have changed in Section4-A, the principle laid down in Ram Kishan11 that prematuretermination of lease under Section 4-A, after giving ahearing to the lessee is an executive act and notlegislative act, however, continues to hold good.Therefore, the act of termination of a mining lease, evenunder the new Section 4-A, is an executive act.

. . .

. . .

29. When the Act is read as a whole, the legislativeintent is clear that a lease once validly granted cannot beterminated prematurely without a notice and hearing. Thereason is obvious. Exercise of power of termination willhave civil consequences adversely affecting the interest ofthe leaseholders. We may refer to the three sectionsinserted by Act 37 of 1986 with effect from 10-2-1987, inthis behalf. Section 24-A deals with the rights andliabilities of a holder of a mining lease. It provides thaton issue of a mining lease under the Act or the Rules madethereunder, it shall be lawful for the holder of suchlease, to enter upon the leased land, at all times duringits currency for carrying on mining operations. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4-A contemplate prematuretermination only when the Government concerned is of theview that it is expedient to do so, in the interest ofregulation of mines and mineral development, preservationof natural environment, control of floods, to preventpollution or to avoid danger to public health orcommunication or to ensure safety of buildings, monumentsor other structures or for such other purposes. Sub-section(3) of Section 4-A prohibits any order of a prematuretermination of a mining lease being made, without giving ahearing to the leaseholder. The Act does not contemplatewholesale termination of all existing leases/permissions inrelation to a minor mineral without hearing. Section 17-Awhile empowering the Central Government to reserve areasfor purposes of conservation of minerals, and empoweringthe Central/State Government to reserve areas for miningoperationbygovernmentcompanies/corporations,specifically exclude areas already held under miningleases. Even, Section 17 while referring to the power ofthe Central Government to undertake mining operationsexclusively in any area, excludes areas already held undermining leases. It is, thus, clear that the Act extends astatutory protection to the holder of a mining lease tocarry on mining operations during the period of lease, interms of the lease deed. The Act further contemplatespremature termination only for the reasons stated in sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 4-A and in the mannerprovided in sub-section (3) of Section 4-A. There is nodoubt that the legislature can make a provision in thestatute itself for termination of the mining leases withoutobservance of the principles of natural justice. It did notchoose to do so. When the Act assures the lessee the rightto carry on mining operations during the entire period oflease and provides for termination only after giving a hearing, the delegate cannot, while making a rule inexercise of the power granted under the Act, make aprovision for termination of all leases relating to aparticular minor mineral, without giving an opportunity ofhearing to the lease/permission-holders. That part of Rule38-A which purports to terminate all leases forthwith,without notice or hearing to the lessees, does not conformto the object, scheme and the provisions of the Act underwhich it is made and therefore, invalid. Borrowing thewords of Russell of Killowen, C.J., we may as well sayParliament never intended to give authority to make such arule."

and ultimately directed as follows :-"37. ... (ii) That part of Rule 38-A which purports toterminate quarrying leases / permissions forthwith(from 2-10-2003) is read down in terms of para 26above. ..."

25. As a matter of fact, in the present impugned rule it isindicated that unless the amount is paid within 60 days, such leaseshall be deemed to have been cancelled on 61[st] day. As per theRules, such leases could be terminated by six months notice. Inview of the fact that by virtue of the stay order passed, thelessees were allowed to continue and practically all of them havecompleted the period of lease, the method adopted by the SupremeCourt cannot be applied in the present cases. However, the ratio ofthe decision of the Supreme Court is indicative of the fact thatessential terms of the lease cannot be unilaterally altered by therule making authority.

26. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State hascontended that there is a presumption of constitutionality regardingsubordinate legislation. As a matter of fact, this position hasbeen clarified in the decision already cited. Moreover, a similarview has been expressed in (2003) 3 SCC 321 (ST. JOHNS TECHERSTRAINING INSTITUTE v. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FORTEACHER EDUCATION AND ANOTHER).

27. The mere fact that presumption of constitutionality isattached does not mean that in no case the subordinate legislationcan be held to be invalid. In the present case, the subordinatelegislation being arbitrary in the sense that it sought to take awaythe vested right, has to be declared as illegal and ultra vires.

28. Learned Advocate General has also sought to distinguishAIR 1970 SC 1436 by referring to the decision of the Supreme Courtin (2002) 9 SCC 232 (ITC LTD. v. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET

COMMITTEE AND OTHERS).

In the present case, we are not actually concerned with thequestion as to whether there is any scope for the State to enact anylaw. Since the question raised is not regarding the competence ofthe State Government to enact any law, but competence of the StateGovernment to frame any rule affecting vested rights without thesupport of the provisions of the Act, the decisions relied upon bythe learned Advocate General is of no assistance.

29. Learned Advocate General has also invited our attentionto the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000)8SCC 655 (THE QUARRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. THE STATE OF BIHAR ANDOTHERS), wherein the decision reported in AIR 1986 SC 1436 (citedsupra) was explained and followed. The question decided in thesubsequent decision was relating to validity of Section 15 itself asit was contended that there was excessive delegation. Such aquestion need not detain us as it is not relevant for the presentcase.

30. In the above view of the matter, though it cannot besaid that the State Government has no right to levy any amount aslease amount or consideration for grant of leases after introductionof such rule, in the facts of the present case, it can be said thatthe provisions contained in Rule 8-E are inoperative because theState Government did not have the right to frame Rules directingcollection of lease amount in respect of leases which had alreadyvested with the lessees. It is of course true that the Stategovernment could have issued notice terminating such leases bygiving six months notice. However, it was not the intention of theState to terminate the leases. Moreover, as already indicated, byvirtue of stay order, the lessees were allowed to carry on thequarrying operation and the normal period has come to an end.

31. The contention raised by the learned Senior CounselMrs. Nalini Chidambaram that the method of computation of leaseamount is arbitrary, appears to be prima facie acceptable. Suchamount is directed to be fixed on the basis of the highesttender/bid amount in respect of similar mines in the same taluk,adjoining taluk in the same district or even in the adjoiningdistrict. The amount offered in a tender or in an auction dependsupon many imponderable circumstances, such as quality and quantityof the minerals available or perceived to be available. Even attimes it may depend upon the mutual competitiveness of the differenttenderers or bidders and it cannot be assumed that in all cases theamount offered for adjoining quarry is a reasonable guideline forfixing the amount. However, since it is already held that theprovisions contained in Rule 8-E are inoperative, it is not necessary to delve further into such aspect.

32. For the aforesaid reasons, all the writ petitions areallowed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar.

dpkTo1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.2. The Director Collector,Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.3. The District Collector,Villupuram,Villupuram District.4. The District CollectorKrishnagiri,Krishnagiri District5. The District Collector,Namakkal,Namakkal District

6. The District Collector,Vellore,Vellore District7. The District Collector,Pudukkottai,Pudukkottai District.

8. The Deputy Director of Mines,Dharmapuri

9. The District Collector, KarurKarur District

10. The District Collector,Thiruvannamalai District,Thiruvannamalai.

11. The Assistant Director of Geology & MiningKrishnagiri

12. Assistant Director of Geology & Mining,Villupuram.