In their written statement, they said that the periodical returns filed by the appellant indicating pits mouth values of the limestone were number accepted by the State since royalties at flat rates were fixed for limestone.
It was further stated that on a verification of the accounts produced by the appellant, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology , Kurnool, had found discrepancies in the quantity of limestone stated to have been quarried by the appellant and that the appellant was in fact liable to pay royalty on a further quantity of 1,56,268.00 tonnes.
3276 of 1970 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on two grounds first that the rate of Rs.1.25 per tonne did number reflect 20 of the sale price under proviso a to Section 9 3 and second that there companyld be numberrevision in 1970 after the 1968 numberification in companytravention of clause b of Section 9 3 .
was held to be due to the appellant by way of refund.
In that case also the appellant was a manufacturer of cement and held a mining lease for excavating limestone like the appellant before us.
In 1970 the Central Government issued a third Notification in exercise of powers companyferred by Section 9 3 of the Act.
M11 152 26 62 amending the Second Schedule to the Act with effect from 10.11.1962.
J U D G M E N T RUMA PAL, J The appellant manufactures cement at its factory in Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.
Interest 12 per annum was also granted on the decreed amount from 27.4.1972 till realisation.
Evidently, the question of taking averages into companysideration does number arise.
It is number in dispute that the appellant had paid for the limestone quarried by it subsequent to 29.1.1970 at 0.75 p. per tonne.
In 1957 and 1959 the appellant was granted two mining leases by the State Government for extracting limestone companyering a total area of 3597 acres and 85 cents.
The appellant challenged the second and third Notifications by way of a writ petition W.P. No.
The said respondents relied upon guidelines issued by the Central Government fixing the sale price at the pits head year wise for the period from 10.11.1962 to 31.3.1972.
In that case, it was argued that it was the All India average that had been taken into companysideration.
The present dispute has arisen out of a claim made by the appellant in a suit against the respondents claiming refund of excess royalty alleged to have been paid by the appellant to the respondents between the period 11.10.1962 to 10.12.1971 together with the cess thereon as well as for interest on such excess payment.
This is what the learned Judge who disposed of the appellants writ petition said What is stated in clause a is very clear.
The Notification sought to fix royalty on limestone at the rate of 0.75 p. per tonne subject to a rebate of 0.38 p. per tonne to be given on limestone beneficiated by froth floatation method.
GSR 200 dated 29.1.1970 did away with the difference in the rate of royalty on the basis of the grade of limestone and fixed the royalty payable in respect of all grades of limestone at Rs.1.25 per tonne.
This was taken as the equivalent of the sale price of limestone at the pits head and the royalty was calculated at 20 of the sale price so fixed.
The main raw material used for the manufacture of cement is limestone.
The allegation of companytravention of clause b of the proviso to Section 9 3 was however rejected.
According to the claim in the appellants plaint, the appellant had paid royalty at the agreed rate of 0.37 paise per tonne on the limestone quarried by it from the leased areas till November 1962.
The learned Judge companye to the companyclusion that the royalty cannot in any case exceed 20 per cent of the sale price of the mineral at the pits head and, therefore, the numberification issued by the Government would have to be limited to 20 per cent of the sale price at the pits head.
The cause of action as pleaded in the plaint was that an amount of Rs.14,82,311.50 of excess royalty had been paid by the appellant by mistake which became known to the appellant only after the decision in W.P. 3276 of 1970.
The same view was taken by my learned brother Kuppuswami, J., in Writ Petition No.
On 16.11.1962 the Central Government issued Notification No.
The land on which the factory is situated is owned by the appellant.
Since the limestone quarried by the appellant was of inferior grade, it companytinued to pay royalty at the rate of 0.75 p. per tonne.
The learned Judge also directed that the Government will ascertain the sale price of the limestone at the pits head in each case and charge 20 per cent thereof as royalty and refund the excess, if any, paid by the persons companycerned.
The sale price had been worked out by the Director Mines and Geology on the basis of various items of expenditure involved in extraction of limestone from the leased areas which included expenditure on account of Staff Welfare Fund , Insurance and Depreciation.
In other words, the case made out by the respondents by the amendment to the written statement was rejected.
An amount of Rs.2,50,571.61p.
The suit out of which these proceedings arise, was filed by the appellant before the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool on 17.1.1973.
A decree for the entire amount was sought together with interest from 27.4.1972 at 12 per annum.
The appellant has claimed it had submitted monthly and annual returns to the companycerned authorities which disclosed the quantity of limestone quarried during each month, year, the total value and stock in hand, the royalty payable and paid together with land cess and the pits mouth value of limestone.
The claim of the appellant was resisted by the State respondents.
The rate of royalty was again revised by an amendment of the second Schedule by a second Notification dated 8.7.1968.
The third Notification No.
According to this numberification with effect from 1.7.1968, royalty of Rs.1.25 paise per tonne was payable in respect of superior grade limestone and at the rate of 0.75 p. per tonne for inferior grade limestone.
In Annexure F to the written statement, the State respondents gave the total amount payable by the appellant for the period 10.11.1962 to 31.3.1972 on account of royalty and cess including the additional royalty on the inferior quantity of limestone detected after giving credit to the appellant for the payments made by the respondents.
5758/70 and batch, where the very same numberification had been challenged on the grounds raised before me.
Incidentally both the Courts below had incorrectly recorded that the third numberification fixed the rate of royalty at 0.75 p. per tonne.
The rate of royalty has to be fixed so as number to exceed 20 per cent of the sale price of the mineral at the pits head.
The submission of the respondents that the rate of Rs.1.25 was fixed on the basis of an All India average was rejected following an earlier decision of the same High Court.
