Satyeshwar Roy and S.N.Jha JJ.

1. In all these cases the petitioners have contended that they being not the lessees of minor mineral, they were not liable to pay royalty and cess or penalty and public demand raised against them was without jurisdiction. The validity of certificate cases for recovery of the demand has also been challenged.

2. The fact that the petitioners were not lessees of minor mineral has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners not being lessees of minor mineral are not liable to pay cess or royalty under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 , (the Rules). The stand of the respondents is that under the notification dated 14th April, 1988, a copy of which is Annexure A to the counter-affidavit, the petitioners, who had admittedly used minor mineral for execution of their contract, were required to file affidavit stating the fact that they were not the lessees of any minor mineral and disclosing the names of the persons from whom they had purchased minerals which were used in execution of the contract. Since the petitioners have failed to file affidavit, the respondents had jurisdiction to assess royal