JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in both the petitions.

( 2 ) TWO main questions are involved in these four appeals, namely, whether Section 9 (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is ultra vires the Constitution and secondly whether the Notification dated 1/08/1991 issued by the Central Government under Section 9 (3) of the Act is ultra vires, illegal and inoperative in law. On these common questions we have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and are, therefore, disposing of these appeals by this common judgment.

( 3 ) A few relevant facts leading to these cases may be stated at the outset. Appellants in C. A. Nos. 275/94 and 276/94 being State of M. P. and Union of India respectively, were respondent before the High Court is Special Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 10/93. The respondent in these appeals were the original writ petitioners in the High Court. These respondents are purchasers of coal from Coal India Ltd. which was respondent No. 3 in writ petition. The writ petitioners complained that the Notification dated 1/08/1991 issued by the Union of India fixing new rates of royalty on various varieties of coal was illegal and inoperative in law on various grounds, that before 1-8-1991 royalty was payable at the rate of Rs. 6. 50 per ton vide earlier Notification but the same was sought to be increased to Rs. 120. 00 per ton by the new Notification. Since the said Notification was issued under Section 9 (3) of the Act, it was submitted that the said provision confers unguided, unchanennized and arbitrary discretion to the Central Government to increase the rates of royalty to any higher amount and as no guidelines were provided for effecting the said increases either under this Section or elsewhere in the Act, the Section itself is an instance of excessive delegation of essential legislative power and hence it was void, that royalty on various varieties of coals was fixed in the year 1981 vide earlier Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 9 (3 ). Proviso to Section 9 (3) permits revision of the rates of royalty once during every three years. In the year 1982, several coal producing States imposed coal development cess and started receiving revenue for effecting development of their mining areas, till they were challenged by consumers of coal by filing several writ petitions in the High Courts. The controversy ultimately came to be decided by this Court in Orissa Cement Limited v. State of Orissa (AIR 1991 SC 1676 : (1991 AIR SCW 1679) whereby such cess was held to be invalid and beyond the legislative competence of the State Government. It appears that soon after the aforesaid invalidation of the cess the coal producing States were faced with problem of refunding the amounts obtained by them that far. They, therefore, approached the Central Government for help in the matter. In pursuance to the said approach, the Parliament passed an Act validating the ceses paid by the coal consumers up to the date of the judgment by issuing an ordinance styled as the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals Validation Ordinance, 1992. We are not concerned with the said Ordinance and the subsequent Act in the present proceedings. It appears that since the State Government had suffered financial losses because of the invalidation of the cess, they also approached the Central Government for help in the matter. As a consequence thereof, a working group was constituted in this behalf. The said working group suggested an increase in the royalty to the extent of Rs. 70. 00 per ton of coal. The working group also found sufficient justification for compensating the coal producing States to the extent of 100 per cent of the loss caused by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Since the recommendation was accepted by the Central Government, the impugned Notification was issued by the Central Government. According to the writ petitioners before t