Judgment

THAKKAR, J.:- The High Court having struck down the Notification dated January 29, 1970 issued by the Central Government authorising the levy and collection of royalty on limestone at Rs. 1.25 per tonne, the State of Rajasthan which was recovering royalty at the aforesaid rate under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act) has approached this Court by way of these two allied appeals by special leave. The impugned Notification has been struck down by the High Court on the ground that the Central Government had enhanced the rate of royalty by virtue of the said Notification in disregard of the statutory embargo embodied in Cl. (b) of the proviso to S. 9(3)*1 of the Act which prohibits enhancement "more than once during any period of four years".*1

* 1. "S. 9 - Royalties in respect of mining leases.

(3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be specified in the Notification :

Provided that the Central Government shall not :-

(a) x x x

(b) Enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during any period of four years."

2. The contention of the respondents (original Writ Petitioners in the High Court) was that enhancement by amending the schedule could be effected only once within four years of the earlier enhancement. The interpretation canvassed by them (referred to as Writ Petitioners hereafter) was that the, expression "during any period of four years" would mean during the block of four years commencing from the last date on which the enhancement was made. This interpretation was accepted by the High Court.

Now this Court in D. K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of Gujarat, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 20 has interpreted this very expression in a provision which is in pari materia as prohibiting enhancement of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once during any period of four years commencing from the date of the enforcement of the Rules. In other words while the High Court has taken the view that the point of commencement of the period of embargo must begin with effect from the date on which the last enhancement was made, this Court has taken the view that the four year period of embargo must commence from the date of the commencement of the Rules. And that further enhancement can be made only once during the subsequent block of four years so computed. Of course in D. K. Trivedis case this Court was concerned with an analogous provision in the Gujarat Rules. But the problem of interpretation was identical namely whether the four year block would commence from the date of enforcement of the Rules or whether each block would commence from the date of last enhancement. Madon, J. speaking for the Court has resolved the controversy in the passage extracted hereinbelow (at p. 1352 of AIR) :-

"As the Gujarat Rules have been amended from time to time by the impugned notifications so as to enhance or reduce the rate of royalty or dead rent or both, it is necessary at this stage before turning to the Gujarat Rules to consider what the expression "during any period of four years" occurring in the proviso to S. 15(3) mean. It is pertinent to note that the words used in the proviso are "shall not enhance the rate of royalty........ for more than once during any period of four years". This is a wholly different thing from saying that where the rate of royalty has been enhanced once it shall not be enhanced again for a period of four years or, in other words, until a period of four years from the date of such enhancement has expired. The period of four years for this purpose must be and can only be reckoned from the date of coming into force of the rules and it is open to a State Government to enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent at any time during the period of four years from the coming into force of the rules and a