16722/ and demanded the same from him.
328/1968 by its judgment and order dated december 14 1970 and remanded the matter of quantification of the amount royalty due from appellant to the authorities companycerned.
after the decision dated september 2 1970 of the high companyrt in m.p.
he filed a writ petition mp number 328/1968 in the high companyrt on july 23 1968 to challenge the demand of the enhanced royalty.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and orders dated the 2nd september 1970 and 25th march 1974 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
390/1972 and quashed the demand of rs.
16722 made by the state government from the appellant.
3 of 1968 the appellant amended his m.p.
with h. s. parihar for respondent number 1 in ca 785/71 appellant in ca.
36000 and odd more.
328/1968 by introducing paras 20a and 20b and a prayer b i in the writ application to say that he was liable to pay in view of the decision of the high court royalty on the limestone quarried by him at a rate which were chargeable on limestone as a major mineral.
785 of 1971 and 1781 of 1975.
special leave to appeal was granted but stay was refused.
to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals under the companytrol of the union of india the mines and minerals regulation and development act 1957 central act 67 of 1957 hereinafter referred to as the act was passed.
16722/ from him and companytended that if royalty was charged from him on the basis of limestone as a major mineral then he had paid rs.
after remand the authorities determined the amount of royalty due from the appellant at rs.
the appellant came to this companyrt against the order of the high companyrt.
gorelal dubey the appellant in civil appeal number785 of 1971 made and application on may 7 1965 to the state government for a quarry lease for limestone for burning purpose for a term of 10 years mentioning in paragraph 3 of the application minumber minerals against the 6th companyumn minumber minerals or minerals which the applicant intends to mine.
p. nayar for respondent number 2 in ca.
they are being disposed off by a companymon judgment and order.
the firm ram chander badri prasad gaur respondent number 3 filed an applications before the state government on june 2 1965 under the central rules in respect of the same area asking the goverment to grant a mining lease to it for mining limestone as a major mineral by their order dated numberember 10 1965 a quarry lease was granted by the state government to the appellant and a lease deed was executed on numberember 10 1965 including special clause 18a therein.
on certain grounds which are number necessary to be detailed here the high companyrt allowed m.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the result was that the appellants lease companyld remain in operation for a period of about 5 years and for the last 5 years respondent number 3 who was granted a mining lease pursuant to the order of the central government has been carrying on its operation of mining limestone as a major mineral.
petition number.
during the pendency of the lease in favour of the appellant rate of royalty was enhanced by the state government in exercise of their power under the state rules.
respondent number 3 filed an application in revision before the central government.
3/68 and 390/72 respectively.
the appellant filed a writ petition mp 390 72 in the high companyrt to attack the demand of rs.
the high companyrt by its judgment and order dated march 25 1974 allowed m.p.
m. tarkunde and k. j. john of m s. j. b. dadachanji co. for the appellant in ca 785/71 ram panjwani dy.
they allowed the revision by their order dated december 14 1967 holding therein that in substance the application for a lease filed by the appellant was an application for major mineral and lease granted was also number for minumber mineral hence the grant of the lease to the appellant was number competent.
during the companyrse of hearing of gorelal dubeys appeal special leave was granted by us and thereupon the appeal was registered and numbered as ca 1781/75.
the power to grant a quarry lease for limestone as a minumber mineral or a mining lease for limestone as a major mineral rested in the state government the former under the state rules and the latter under the central rules.
the appellant filed a writ petition m.p.
the central government therefore directed the state government to companysider the application of respondent number 3 for grant of mining lease for limestone over an area of 8.36 acres in village bistara.
the land in respect of which the application was made by the appellant measured 8.36 acres and is situated in village bistara district jabalpur.
the state of madhya pradesh filed an application for special leave to appeal from the said decision of the high companyrt.
demands of more royalty were made from the appellant by the state government.
1781/75 .
applicants had to apply to the state government in the respective forms prescribed in the two rules.
the central government issued a numberification dated the 1st june 1958 in exercise of the powers companyferred on them by clause e of section 3 of the act declaring limestone used for lime burning as a minumber mineral.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. these two appeals by special leave have been heard together as they originate from a companymon dispute between the parties.
number 3/1968 in the madhya pradesh high companyrt to challenge the order of the central government.
785/71 l. sanghi a. k. sanghi c. k. ratnaparkhi and a. g. ratnaparkhi for respondent number 3 in ca 785/71 m s. balakrishnan and ghatate for respondents in ca 1781/75.
the high companyrt dismissed the writ application by order dated september 2 1970 affirming the view of the central government that in substance and in effect the application for and grant of lease to the appellant by the state government was for a major mineral and number a minumber mineral.
by a subsequent numberification dated the 20th september 1961 the description of the limestone as a minumber mineral was changed and only limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material was declared as a minumber mineral.
