( 1 ) HIGH Policy Decisions which can make or mar better or bitter Central-State relationsare these to be made by the Political Managers of the State chosen by the people in that behalf or by private citizens (even if they are leaders of the elected Opposition) is one of the questions which has surfaced in this matter. It has surfaced along with the question whether such private citizens can be permitted to fling a challenge in the name of promoting interest of the State which if successful can ruin the economy of the State and create economic chaos. Such would be the outcome because if the impugned notifications are voided there will exist no legal authority whatsoever for recovering royalty/for the crude oil produced in the state (being collected at Rs. 61. 00 per metric tonne) which is considered rather low by the petitioners. Not only that even the royalty recovered for several years in the past may well have to be refunded. And yet another important question has also been raised: Whether Article 131 (which excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts except the Supreme Court in regard to suits for resolving disputed claims between State and Centre) of the Constitution of India not with standing this Court should exercise its High Prerogative discretionary jurisdiction virtually in order to enable circumvention thereof. Circumvention at the instance of private citizens not in charge of the running of the affairs of the State in a sensitive matter where National Interest is pitted against State Interest and a delicate balancing act of a tight rope walker is called for from the forum which undertakes this task.

( 2 ) TWO Opposition Members of the Legislative Assembly one of whom is an ex Chief Minister (Petitioner No. 1) and the other is the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly along with the editor of a Weekly known as Lok Swaraj have instituted the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as in their view royalty paid to the State of Gujarat is extremely low and inadequate. The substantive relief claimed is the prayer contained in Paragraph 26 (b) whereby the following notifications issued under the provisions of the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act 1948 have been challenged as illegal invalid and unconstitutional. The details of the notifications challenged are as follows. S. Notification

Rate per No.

No.

Date

MT-Rs.

Annex.

Remarks

(1) S. O. 465

3/02/1973

15 A (1)

Under sub-sec. 4

(2) S. O. 600 (E)

6/09/1976

42 A (2)

of sec. 6 of the

(3) S. O. 219 (E)

26/03/1981

61 A (3)

Act

(4) G. S. R. 161

3/02/1973

15 B (1)

Under secs. 5 and

(5) G. S. R. 792 (E)

8/09/1976

42 B (2) 6 of the Act

(6) G. S. R. 211 (E)

26/03/1981

61/-

B (3)

in order to substantiate the challenge to the aforesaid notifications petitioners have challenged the Constitutionality of the provisions of the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act 1948 (thereinafter referred to as Oilfields Act) and Rule 14 (1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules 1959

( 3 ) NOW it is common ground between the parties that a representation has already been made by the State Government to the Central Government in this behalf. In fact Union of India has placed on record a statement marked Annexure X made by the Minister of Petroleum and Chemicals and Fertilizers on the floor of the Parliament on 10/08/1982 in response to unstirred Question No. 4875 which shows that the matter is under consideration (See Answer C ). Counsel for the Union of India has therefore raised an objection at the threshold relying on the provision contained in Article 131 of the Constitution of India which provides that subject to the provision of the Constitution the Supreme Court shall to the exclusion of any other Court have original jurisdiction inter alia in any dispute between Government of India and one or more States if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right