Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ramesh Chand Meena Son Of Shri Kadu Ram ... on 17 September, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 975/2018
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij
Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Jalor.
----Appellants
Versus
Serve Shree Om Shiv Neelkanth Associates, Plot No.1, Barwada
House Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Devendra Singh, Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No.1, Barwada House Colony,
Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
Connected With
2. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 959/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Dholpur
----Appellants Versus M/s Chaitnya Construction Company, Plot No.11, Girish Vihar, Kali Ki Baghichi Ke Pass, District Bharatpur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Brijesh Kumari, Wife Of Shri Daulta Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Nagla Parma, Post Ucchain, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
3. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 960/2018 (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (2 of 11) [SAW-975/2018]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Jaipur
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Dev Dashrath Associates, Ummed Nagar, Osiya, Jodhpur Through Partner Manvendra Singh Bhati Son Of Shri Nathu Singh Bhati, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 616, Hanuwant-A, Bjs Colony, Paota C Road, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
4. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 974/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Roopwas, District Bharatpur
----Appellants Versus M/s Graphtech Exim Pvt Ltd, 154, Satya Niketan, New Delhi, 110021 Through Director Shri Jitendra Pal Singh Chundawat, Son Of Shri Jeevan Singh Chundawat Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Naval Singh Ji Ka Guda, Post Kurawad, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
5. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 976/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (3 of 11) [SAW-975/2018]
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Alwar
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Galaxy Mining And Royalties, C-33, Lal Kothi Scheme, Vidhansabha Road, Jaipur Through Partner Shri Gauri Shankar Goyanka, Son Of Shri Manohar Lal Goyanka, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 228, Mantri Marg Ke Pass, Ward No.38, Churu (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
6. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 977/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretary, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Alwar
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Kuber Kamna Marbles Private Limited, 312, Ganpati Plaza, M I Road, Jaipur Through Director Shri Satish Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No.12, Sachivalya Nagar Vistar-B, 12 Mill, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
7. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 978/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Ramganjmandi (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (4 of 11) [SAW-975/2018]
----Appellants Versus Shree Shiv Shankar And Company, 142, Hanuwant B, Bjs Jodhpur At Present Royalty Office, Near Petrol Pump, Maruti Nagar, Raj Nagar, Ramganjmandi Through Shri Virendra Singh Bhati Singh Son Of Shri Shumbho Singh Bhati, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 142, Hanuwant B, Bjs Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
8. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 980/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Nagaur
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree K R And Party, Plot No. 23 Hanuwant M Circuit House Road, Ratanada Jodhpur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Mangi Lal Gwala, Son Of Shri Kumbha Ram Ji, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Gwalon Ki Dhani, Gaderi, Tejpura, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
9. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 981/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretatry, Mines And Geology Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
3. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Government Of Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, 5Th Floor Tilak Marg, Jaipur
----Appellants Versus Shri Ashwini Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ved Prakash Yadav, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 2, Geejgarh Vihar, Hawa Sadak Main Road, (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (5 of 11) [SAW-975/2018] Jaipur
----Respondent
10. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 982/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Gotan
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Galaxy Mining And Royalties, C-33, Lal Kothi Scheme, Vidhansabha Road, Jaipur Through Partner Shri Gauri Shankar Goyanka, Son Of Shri Manohar Lal Goyanka, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 228, Mantri Marg Ke Pass, Ward No. 38, Churu (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
11. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 985/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Roopwas, District Bharatpur
----Appellants Versus M/s Kishore And Party, Plot No. 23, Hanuwant M Circuit House Road, Ratanada Jodhpur Through Authorized Signatory Deependra Singh, Son Of Shri Ram Awatar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 40, Nirankari Colony, Gokulpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (6 of 11) [SAW-975/2018]
12. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 995/2018
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretary, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Kuber Kamna Marbles Private Limited, 312, Ganpati Plaza, M I Road, Jaipur Through Director Shri Satish Kumar Gupta, Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No.12, Sachivalya Nagar Vistar-B, 12 Mill, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
13. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 996/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Karoli
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Om Shiv Neelkanth Associates, Plot No.1, Barwada House Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Devendra Singh, Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No.1, Barwada House Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
14. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 998/2018
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (7 of 11) [SAW-975/2018] Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Karoli
----Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand Meena Son Of Shri Kadu Ram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Flat No.s-1, Plot No.3, Nand Vihar Colony, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
15. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1008/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
3. Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Sawar
----Appellants Versus M/s Coral Associates, A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At 215-A, Sardarpura, Udaipur Through Its Partner Sh. Saurabh Tak
----Respondent
16. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1015/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Group-2) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur
4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Sirohi
----Appellants Versus Serve Shree Om Shiv Neelkanth Associates, Plot No.1, Barwada House Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Through Power Of (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (8 of 11) [SAW-975/2018] Attorney Holder Devendra Singh, Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Plot No.1 Barwada House Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
17. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1039/2018
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Mines And Geology Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Mines And Geology Rajasthan, Udaipur
3. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Circle Ajmer
4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Behind Balaji Marble, Ajmer Road, Savar, District Ajmer
----Appellants Versus M/s Banas Royalities Office, Office No.223, Second Floor, Ganpati Plaza, Mi Road, Jaipur Through Gopal Singh Son Of Shri Man Singh By Caste Rajput Aged 50 Years Resident Of Dabrela Tehsil Sarwad District Ajmer, Rajasthan Being Power Of Attorney Holder
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG assisted by Mr. Shashikant Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, Mr. V.S. Jakhar on behalf of Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa Mr. Sanchit Tamra Mr. Achintya Kaushik HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 17/09/2019
1. The State's grievance articulated in these appeals is that the learned Single Judge cited Rule 44(16) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. It is submitted that on conjoint reading of that provision with Rule 23 of the said Rules, (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (9 of 11) [SAW-975/2018] the question of variation in excess royalty collection, would arise in the event of enhancement of dead rent. In the present case by operation of Rules, the rate of dead rent had reduced. Nevertheless, the State sought to revise upward, excess royalty collection rate. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Court in writ proceedings.
2. The learned Single Judge noticed that when the rate of dead rent is reduced or increased, the revision of dead rent occurs. He also observed that such change would not affect static dead rent in the light of the conditions in the agreement and that collection of excess royalty had to be made at the rate of dead rent prevailing at the time of contract. The operative portion of the Single Judge's order is as follows:-
"When rate of dead rent is reduced or increased, it amount to revision of dead rent. In any case, it is not going to affect with static dead rent in the light of clause of the agreement. The calculation of excess royalty has to be made at the rate of dead rent existing at the time of contract. If rate of dead rent at the time of execution of contract is taken, obviously the figure of excess royalty calculation would be after taking note of prevalent rate of the dead rent and not on the reduced rate because Rule 44(16) makes it clear that revision of dead rent would not be affected on the contract.
The petitioners cannot seek benefit of excess royalty collection on the reduced rate of dead rent. The respondents were expected to pass order taking into consideration the clauses of contract and Rule 44(16) of the Rules of 2017. Instead of doing it in the manner explained above, the respondents passed impugned order on 20th June, 2017 to modify the terms of the contract which was not required in view of observation made above. The only order could have been that irrespective of reduction of rate of dead rent, the calculation for excess royalty collection would be on the prevalent rate of dead rent when contract was executed. The outcome would have been nothing but same for the purpose of calculation causing no loss to the Government. It is apart from saving the petitioners in case the rate of dead rent is increased. Accordingly, to have balance, Rule 44(16) so as clause 3(xvi) of the Rules of 2017 is to be given effect in strict terms. Hence, the issue raised by the parties has been decided in consonance to the terms of agreement and the Rules of 2017. The outcome of which would be nothing but as follows:(Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM)
(10 of 11) [SAW-975/2018]
(i) For the purpose of calculation of excess royalty collection amount, the determination would be after taking into consideration the rate of dead rent prevalent at the time of execution of contract and not on the reduced rate because as per Rule 44(16), revision of dead rent cannot be applied on the contract.
(ii) The direction given in Para (i) would given sanctity of clause 3(xvi) of the agreement as well Section 44(16) of the Rules of 2017. The Government made calculation by taking difference of amount on the reduced rate of dead rent, whereas, increase and reduction of dead rent should not have been taken into consideration for determination of amount of royalty.
(iii) The State Government can issue demand as per the directions given above. If same amount comes by applying the method given by this court, they would be at liberty to maintain the demand.
(iv) It is, however, clarified that in case of increase of rate of dead rent, it would not be to the loss of the petitioners. In that case also, same formula would be applied for determination of amount of excess royalty collection, as given in the present cases where rate of the dead rent has been reduced."
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, it appears to this Court that the change contemplated by Rule 44(16) and Rule 23 is one of enhancement of dead rent. Since, in the present cases, concededly the dead rent was not enhanced but rather revised downwards, the only possibility that could have enabled the State to increase the rate of excess royalty collection, would have been a neutral condition setting out a formula or a power reserved to itself to do so. No such contingency was contemplated by the State when it entered into the contracts with the respondents, who were awarded the contracts. The contract was awarded pursuant to bids offered by the respondents.
4. In these circumstances, the order of the Single Judge, in the opinion of the Court, is an equitable one inasmuch as it (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) (11 of 11) [SAW-975/2018] takes care of public interest, and pins the rate of dead rent to the one prevailing at the time of award of the contract.
5. No exception can, therefore, be taken with the impugned judgment.
6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Interim orders are hereby vacated. All pending applications too are disposed of.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /17-33 (Downloaded on 20/09/2019 at 09:20:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)