That increase, however, resulted in the respondent company having to pay royalty at an increased rate since the rate of royalty payable by the companypany was on graded slabs varying according to the price of companyl at the pits head.
Representations by the respondent company to the State Government to charge royalty at 5 proved futile.
167 of 1968 .
1 in C.A. No.
P. Maheshwari, for, respondent No.
1 in C.A. No.
This is seen from the Central Governments letter, dated July 4, 1962, by which it informed the companypany in reply to the companypanys letter of May 21, 1962 that the question of the rate of royalty payable, by the companyliery was, in companysultation with the State Government, under companysideration and that action in that companynection would shortly be taken.
That revision was pending when the companypany filed a writ petition in March 1966 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for quashing the said order, dated October 1, 1965, the rejection of its representation by the State Government, dated November 19, 1965 and the said demand numberices.
9 and 30A, and formulated three companytentions for companysideration.
168 of 1968 .
The State, Government, however, was number agreeable to modify the terms of the said lease and to bring the royalty payable thereunder in companysonance with r. 41 of 1949 Rules and the First Schedule thereto.
Under an industrial award, called the Mazumdar Award, published on May 25, 1956, increased wages were awarded to companyliery workers.
139 and 182 of 1966.
Before the Act was brought into force by a numberification as provided by S. 1 3 thereof, an amending Act, being Act 15 of 1958, was passed on May 15, 1958, By a numberification dated May 29, 1958, the Central Government brought into force the Act with effect from June 1, 1958.
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated December 20, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
S.O. 30, dated 29th December, 1961.
As against these companyclusions, companynsel for the State took us through the terms of the lease and the provisions of the Act, and in particular sees.
Thereafter companyrespondence went on between the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent company for a companysiderable time.
Such a modification, if it were to be companystrued as meaning payment at a rate higher than 5 would be in excess of the power under sec.
2 in both the appeals .
9 1 and the Second Schedule, and number at a rate higher than such rate.
167 and 168 of 1968.
P. Nayar, for respondent No.
per ton if the price was Rs.
51/ per ton to 25 of the price per ton at the pits head if that price was Rs.
That meant that the respondent company had to pay henceforth royalty to the State of Madhya Pradesh as the lessor at the rates provided in the original lease.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. By an Indenture of Lease, dated January 12, 1944, made between the then Ruler of Korea State of the one part, referred to as the lessor therein, and Sir Mukherji B. Dadabhoy, referred to as the lessee, of the other part, the lessor granted to the lessee for a term of 30 years, in companysideration of payment of rents and royalties therein mentioned, a mining lease of an area measuring 5.25 sq.
miles delineated on the plan annexed thereto, with liberties, powers and privileges and on terms and companyditions therein set out.
However, on January 1, 1966, the Central Government issued a numberification under which it directed the lessees of pre 1949 leases to pay royalty at 5 of the f.o.r.
rule 41 1 a .
Petition Nos.
The Government of India referred the respondent company to the State Government and advised it to make a similar representation to that Government.
2 of that Indenture, the lessee agreed to pay during the subsistence of the lease royalties at the rates and on dates set out therein.
By cl.
On December 28, 1957, Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 67 of 1957 under its power under Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
9 1 and the Second Schedule, that is, at ,the rate higher than 5 provided thereunder.
18.6.0 per ton.
As its long title recites, the Act was passed to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals under the companytrol of the Union.
The rates of royalty varied from 5 to 25 according to the price of companyl per ton extracted from the leased area, that is to say, from 4 ans.
Since, under that lease, such assignment companyld number be made without the previous companysent of the lessor and since, by that time, owing to the merger of the Korea State with Madhya Pradesh, the State of Madhya Pradesh had acquired the said area and the rights in respect of it under the said lease, an agreement was made between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent company on November 6, 1952 under which the State of Madhya Pradesh granted its companysent to the said assignment for the unexpired period of the said lease in companysideration of the respondent company agreeing to companyply with the terms and companyditions of the said lease including I payment of royalties to the State Government as provided therein.
30A was enacted, viz.,
to phase the rate of 5, and number to impose it at one stroke, the modification companyld number mean recovery at a rate inconsistent with sec.
30A and also in companytravention of the language of sec.
A representation made by the respondent company to the Government of India, dated October 5, 1956 shows that the increase in respect of the companyl extracted by the respondent companypany was from 14.6.0 and Rs.
17.6.0 and Rs.
In 1952, Sir Maneckji agreed to assign the said lease and the benefits, powers and privileges thereunder provided to the respondent companypany.
On the merger of the Korea State with Madhya Pradesh, into the events of which it is number necessary for the purposes of this appeal to go, the leased area became subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 53 of 1948 and the Mineral Concession Rules made thereunder on October 25, 1949.
The companypany thereupon filed a revision before the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
To meet the companysequent increased expenditure which the companylieries had to incur, the Government of India proportionately increased the companytrolled companyl price.
15.6.0 to Rs.
V. Gupte, Suresh A. Shroff, R. K. Thakur, Bhuvanesh Kumari, K. S. Cooper, M. K. Cooper, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
20/ or more.
An unexpected development in the meantime took place.
N. Shroff, for the appellants in both the appeals .
