2009 Supreme(SC) 1816

2009(8) Supreme 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and K S Radhakrishnan, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Dev Ganga Enterprises — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8152 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP [C] No.27219 of 2008]
Decided on : 08-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Royalty Collection Contracts refer to contracts given to the contractors to collect royalty on behalf of the Government from quarry licensees and short term licence holders who excavate minor minerals. On the other hand, Excess Royalty Collection Contracts refer to contracts given to contractors to collect royalty in excess of annual dead rent on behalf of the Government from the holders of mining leases.

Headnote:Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – Rules 32,61 – Where the State Government enters into an ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ under Rule 32, whether a contractor is entitled to a grace period of 15 days (from the date when the amount becomes due) for paying the dues without interest under Rule 61 of the said Rules – Plea of appellants that except grace period of 10 days given under the Rules and under the terms of the contract, the contractor was not entitled to any further interest – free grace period -Stand of respondents that Rule 61 is a general provision relating to interest in regard to all amounts due under the Rules and is therefore applicable to all contracts entered under the Rules; and that the mandatory provision in Rule 61 that interest shall be chargeable only after 15 days from the date when it becomes due, clearly means that all amounts due and payable under Rules will enjoy the benefit of 15 days interest free period-Held ‘Royalty Collection Contract’ was a concept that was conceived and contemplated in Rules as originally framed – On the other hand, ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ was a new concept introduced by amendment dated 12.8.1994 by inserting a new definition under clause (xiii-a) of Rule 3 – After the said amendment in 1994 introducing the concept of ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’, Rules 32, 34, 35 and 37 were amended by inserting ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ wherever the words ‘Royalty Collection Contract’ occurred by amendment dated 27.3.2003,thereby emphasising that the two were different – But significantly such an insertion was not made in Rule 61- If the intention was to apply provisions of Rule 61 even in regard to Excess Royalty Collection Contracts, then Rule 61 also would have been amended, when Rules 32,34, 35 and 37 were amended, to include ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contracts’ – In the absence of any reference of ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract Amount’ in Rule 61, held evident that 15 days interest holiday was not available in regard to ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contracts’, even though it may be available in regard to the four categories of dues referred to therein-Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored while upholding the demand for interest at 12% per annum in respect of the delayed payment of instalments relating to ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’, without applying the grace period of 15 days under Rule 61 of the Rules –Appeal allowed. (Paras 8 to 10)

        Royalty Collection Contracts and Excess Royalty Collection Contracts – Differentiation of -It is no doubt true that the procedures for auction/tender in regard to Royalty Collection Contracts and Excess Royalty Collection Contracts are the same – It is also true that the form of contract for both types of contracts is the same – It is also true that under both types of contract, the government gives contracts to collect royalty in regard to particular areas in consideration of payment of a fixed amount annually – But these factors do not lead to an inference that the Royalty Collection Contracts are same as Excess Royalty Collection Contract – Royalty Collection Contracts refer to contracts given to the contractors to collect royalty on behalf of the Government from quarry licensees and short term licence holders who excavate minor minerals – On the other hand, Excess Royalty Collection Contracts refer to contracts given to contractors to collect royalty in excess of annual dead rent on behalf of the Government from the holders of mining leases – Hence an Excess Royalty Collection Contract cannot be equated with a Royalty Collection Contract – Rule 61 Of the Rules clearly sets out the nature of dues in regard to which it will apply – It specifically refers to dues in regard to “dead rent, royalty, quarry licence fee and royalty collection contract amounts” – `Excess Royalty Collection Contract Amount’ is neither a dead rent, nor royalty nor quarry licence fee nor a royalty collection contract amount – `Royalty Collection Contract’ was a concept that was conceived and contemplated in Rules as originally framed – On the other hand, `Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ was a new concept introduced by amendment dated 12.8.1994 by inserting a new definition under clause (xiii-a) of Rule 3 – After the said amendment in 1994 introducing the concept of `Excess Royalty Collection Contract’, Rules 32, 34, 35 and 37 were amended by inserting `Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ wherever the words ‘Royalty Collection Contract’ occurred by amendment dated 27.3.2003,thereby emphasising that the two were different (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue in consideration in present case was where the State Government enters into an ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 whether a contractor is entitled to a grace period of 15 days (from the date when the amount becomes due) for paying the dues without interest under Rule 61 of the said Rules.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held ‘Royalty Collection Contract’ was a concept that was conceived and contemplated in Rules as originally framed. On the other hand, ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ was a new concept introduced by amendment dated 12.8.1994 by inserting a new definition under clause (xiii-a) of Rule 3-After the said amendment in 1994 introducing the concept of ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’, Rules 32, 34, 35 and 37 were amended by inserting ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’ wherever the words ‘Royalty Collection Contract’ occurred by amendment dated 27.3.2003,thereby emphasising that the two were different. But significantly such an insertion was not made in Rule 61. If the intention was to apply provisions of Rule 61 even in regard to Excess Royalty Collection Contracts, then Rule 61 also would have been amended, when Rules 32,34, 35 and 37 were amended, to include ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contracts’. In the absence of any reference of ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract Amount’ in Rule 61, held evident that 15 days interest holiday was not available in regard to ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contracts’, even though it may be available in regard to the four categories of dues referred to therein-Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and that of trial court was restored while upholding the demand for interest at 12% per annum in respect of the delayed payment of instalments relating to ‘Excess Royalty Collection Contract’, without applying the grace period of 15 days under Rule 61 of the Rules.