1. In both the proceedings, the power of State Government to collect royalty in respect of minor minerals and also the power to impose penalty on the persons who have committed default in making the payment of royalty is challenged. In brief, it is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the Rules framed there under, the Maharashtra State has no power to collect the royalty. In both the proceedings, notices issued by the respondent, State/Government for recovery of royalty and penalty amount are challenged and relief of quashment of those orders made by the revenue authority are claimed. Additional relief of setting aside of the order of seizure of the truck for recovery of such amount made against the petitioner of the first proceeding is also claimed. Both the sides are heard.

2. The petitioner from Writ Petition No. 3015/2000 is having stone crusher and it collects mining material for this stone crusher from various persons. It is the case of petitioner that it pays royalty on such minor minerals. This petitioner has no land or quarry and so, the petitioner purchases and collects minor minerals from others.

3. It is the case of petitioner from Writ Petition No. 3015/2000 that it is in construction business also and it undertakes the construction of Government projects etc. It is contended that under the Government policy and the contract, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the royalty amount and this circumstance also needs to be considered in his favour.

4. In August 1994, the Officers of revenue authority visited the site where the stone crusher of the petitioner from Writ Petition No. 3015/2000 is functioning. The Officers noticed that there was unaccounted minor mineral at this site and even in the account of stone crusher, there was much quantity of minor minerals in respect of which royalty was not paid. Show cause notice was then issued in September 1995 and the petitioner was asked as to why the royalty amount of Rs.45,150/- and penalty of Rs.8,19,956/- should not be recovered from the petitioner. As no show cause was shown, recovery order was made. Then the petitioner filed review application. After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the record of royalty receipts, review application was decided on 16.3.1996 and the amount of royalty was reduced to Rs.37,100/- and the amount of penalty was also reduced to Rs.7,10,862/-. This order made by the Collector, revenue authority was challenged by filing appeal before the Divisional Commissioner by the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). The appeal came to be dismissed. It is the contention of the petitioner from this petition that the decision is now challenged before the Government, before the Hon'ble Minister and the said proceeding is still pending. It is also the contention of the petitioner that even when the Minister has granted stay to the recovery of amount, coercive action is being taken for the recovery of amount and so, the petitioner is required to file the present proceeding.

5. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 3015/2000, by making interim order on 2.8.2000, this Court directed the respondent to hand over the custody of the seized truck of the petitioner, subject to condition of payment of royalty which was due and the royalty which would become due in future. Thus, indirectly this Court granted stay to the order of revenue authority by which the petitioner was directed to pay the penalty.

6. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 3248/2000 is the owner of the land and in that land by doing mining activity, the petitioner is collecting the minor mineral for his stone crusher. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been paying the royalty regularly. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the rate