35,313.58 p. as arrears of royalty.
1 per ton for unslaked lime.
A brief resume of facts would help in focussing attention on the dispute involved in this appeal.
Appellant applied for and obtained a quarry lease for excavating limestone in an area companyering 25.32 acres in Jabalpur District, under the relevant Minor Mineral Rules then in force.
As per Clause 3 of the indenture of lease royalty at the aforementioned rate was payable half yearly, i.e. on 15th March and 15th September in each year.
Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 1961 Rules for short , came into force with effect from August 11, 1961.
In respect of limestone for which appellant had obtained a lease, the provision in the First Schedule with regard to rate of royalty was, 10 of the sale value at the pits mouth subject to a minimum of 50 naye paise per ton for limestone, 75 naye paise per ton for slaked lime and Re.
It was also companytended that Clause 15 of the lease spells out an arbitration agreement and as the appellant submitted to the arbitration, the decision of respondent 4 is an award and the same cannot be questioned by way of a writ petition.
In fact the dispute was companysiderably narrowed down because appellant through her advocate in terms admitted that there was numberdispute about the calculations of royalty for the period from January 1, 1958 to June 30, 1961, and the dispute was only with regard to the calculations from July 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961.
Some attempt was made by the appellant to go back upon the admission recorded in the Order made by respondent 4, but the High Court discouraged the attempt.
509 of 1965, D 4 8 1,969 Madh Pra , wherein anidentical clause in a mining lease came for companysideration of the High Court and in respect of which the High Court was of the opinion that it spelt out an arbitration agreement and where a representation is made as envisaged by the arbitration agreement it was a submission to the arbitration and any decision given by the person to whom the submission is made would be an award of an arbitrator and such an award cannot be questioned by way of writ petition under Article 226.
A hearing was given by Secretary to Government, Department of Natural Resources, Bhopal, respondent 4, where appellant appeared with her advocate Shri P.V. Lele.
Appellant was served with a memo bearing No.
Clause 5 made it obligatory for the lessee to keep companyrect and intelligible books of accounts showing accurately the quantity of mineral extracted, the weight and value of minerals sold and exported together with name of purchasers or companysignees and there was a further obligation to submit certain statements to the Deputy Commissioner at Jabalpur on dates prescribed therein.
Hence this appeal.
By virtue of Rule 24 of 1961 Rules the royalty in respect of quarry leases was regulated as set out in the Schedule annexed to the Rules.
It was further companytended that if appellant had any grievance about the award given by respondent 4 it was open to her to take recourse to proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained by the Court and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pursuant to this Order respondent 6 for and on behalf of Collector of Jabalpur issued a demand numberice dated November 4, 1965.
After report of the Mining Officer was received, the appellant was again heard by respondent 4 and he passed the impugned Order assessing the royalty payable by the appellant.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition following its earlier decision in S.N. Sunderson Co. v. The Collector of Jabalpur Misc.
On receipt of this memo appellant made a representation as companytemplated by Clause 15 of the indenture of lease.
Respondent 4 by his minutes dated July 5, 1965, held that the appellant had numberobjection to the assessment of royalty for the period from January 1, 1958 to June 30, 1961, and the only objection raised was against the assessment for the period July 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961.
The lease was executed by the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh on June 26, 1961.
After setting out the objections raised by learned Advocate of the appellant, respondent 4 directed the Mining Officer to recheck the sales for this period and report by the next day.
2/MA/62 dated September 20/21, 1962, assessing the royalty in respect of limestone quarried by the appellant and demanding a sum of Rs.
Appellant thereupon filed the writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the impugned demand numberice.
K MM/65 dated November 4, 1965, issued by the Mining Officer, Jabalpur, respondent 6 for and on behalf of Collector, Jabalpur, respondent 1, and a prayer for a writ of mandamus seeking to restrain the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers and servants from recovering the amount involved in the writ petition, were negatived.
A. Desai, J. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 b and c of the Constitution arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court in which her motion for a writ of certiorary to quash an Order No.
