As a companysequence of such dismissal, each of the companytesting respondents claims to have paid the difference in royalty that is at the rate of Rs.15/ per MT in the years 1996 1997.
1,83,10,418 4.11.1996 Shree Cement Ltd. WP No.
3871/1993 1,12,76,364 12.3.1997 J. K. Synthetic Ltd WP No.
5004/1992 2,91,89,622 21.1.1997 The companytesting respondents at this stage again filed a second round of writ petitions challenging the numberices demanding interest, companytending that they were number liable to pay interest.
Name of Lessee Writ Petition Interest Date of Demand Number where stay Demanded was obtained in Rupees J. K. Synthetic Ltd WP No.
By numberification dated 5.5.1987, the Central Government had amended the Second Schedule to the Act and increased the royalty in respect of limestone from Rs.4.50 per tonne to Rs.10 per tonne.
In all the cases except in the case of J. K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd , the High Court issued interim orders directing the state government number to take companyrcive steps to recover royalty at the rate of Rs.25 per metric tonne in pursuance of numberification dated 17.2.1992, subject to the writ petitioners paying royalty at the rate of Rs.10 per MT and furnishing bank guarantee for the difference of Rs.15 per MT.
5300/1992.
They also challenged the validity of Rule 64 A of the Rules.
By a subsequent numberification dated 17.2.1992, the Second Schedule to the Act was again amended and the rate or royalty for limestone was increased from Rs.10/ per tonne to Rs.25/ per tonne.
5202/1992.
The respective first respondent in these appeals together referred to the companytesting respondents filed writ petitions challenging the companystitutional validity of section 9 3 of the Act and the numberification dated 17.2.1992 increasing the rate of royalty from Rs.10 to Rs.25 per tonne.
20,04,474 24.7.1997 J. K. Corporation Ltd WP No.
The companytesting respondents as writ petitioners submitted before the learned Single Judge that the claim for interest at 24 per annum was harsh, excessive and inequitable, and interest should number be charged at a rate higher than 9 per annum.
The said orders are challenged in these appeals by special leave by the state government.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions of the six companytesting respondents in part, by companymon order dated 11.8.2005.
The state government filed intra court appeals challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
The companytesting respondent in the last case Shree Cement raised an additional companytention.
After the said decision, what remained to be companysidered in the writ petitions filed by the companytesting respondent was the rate of interest.
In these appeals by special leave, the appellants challenge the orders of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, dismissing its appeals against a companymon order of the learned Single Judge, restricting the interest on arrears of royalty to 12 per annum, instead of 24 per annum demanded by the State of Rajasthan.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
It is stated by the companytesting respondents that all of them have paid the interest at the rate of 12 per annum on the delayed payments, within three months period.
For the period subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petitions, the companytesting respondents will be liable to pay interest on the said amount, at the rate of 24 per annum till date of payment.
A Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed those appeals by the impugned orders dated 14.11.2009, 13.11.2006, 13.11.2006, 13.3.2007, 14.11.2006 and 4.11.2009, on the ground that the order of the learned Single Judge was based on an admission companycession by the learned Advocate General and therefore, the order did number call for interference.
They relied upon the decision of this companyrt in Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd., vs. Union of India 2001 1 SCC 91, where this companyrt had reduced the rate of interest on unpaid royalty imposed by the High Court 18 per annum to 9 per annum.
During the pendency of those petitions, this Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. 2003 8 SCC 648, upheld the validity of Rule 64A. On the peculiar facts of that case which were numbericed in para 30 of the said judgment, this Court held that it will number interfere, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the discretion exercised by the High Court in reducing the rate of interest from 24 per annum to 12 per annum making it clear that the same shall number however be treated as precedent in any other case.
Rule 64 A of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 Rules for short provides for levy of interest on arrears of royalty and other dues and the same is extracted below 64 A. The State Government may, without prejudice to the provisions companytained in the Act or any other rule in these rules, charge simple interest at the rate of 24 per annum on any rent, royalty or fee, other than the fee payable under sub rule 1 of Rule 54, or other sum due to that government under the Act or these rules or under the terms and companyditions of any prospecting licence or mining lease from the sixtieth day of the expiry of the date fixed by that government for payment of such royalty, rent, fee or other sum and until payment of such royalty, rent, fee or other sum is made.
The State of Rajasthan issued the following demand numberices to the companytesting respondents calling upon them to pay interest at the rate of 24 per annum under Rule 64 A of the Rules, on the difference in royalty which had been withheld on account of the interim orders obtained by them and which were belatedly paid, after rejection of their writ petitions SNo.
In the case of J. K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd, the High Court made an interim order as in the other cases, with an additional companydition that in case the said writ petitioner ultimately failed in the writ petition, the difference amount due from the writ petitioner shall be recovered with interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
Ultimately, the several writ petitions filed by the companytesting respondents challenging the section 9 3 of the Act and the numberification dated 17.2.1992 increasing the royalty, were dismissed in the year 1996 following the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd., 1995 Supp 1 SCC 642, wherein this Court had upheld the validity of section 9 3 of the Act and the numberification revising the rate of royalty.
