H.C. MISHRA, J.

1. Heard, Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Sr. Counsel for Tata Steel Limited, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the Union of India.

2. In all these writ applications the petitioner Tata Steel Limited, has challenged the vires of Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as unconstitutional and ultra vires Section 9 of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957;

(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as ultra vires Section 13 of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957;

(iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for creating artificial classification not based on any intelligible differentia by providing differential treatment in levy of royalty between coal put through a washing process within the leased area and coal put through a washing process outside the leased area;

(iv) A further writ, order or direction declaring that charging of royalty on “processed mineral” as contemplated by Rule 64-B of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is beyond the ambit and purview of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and ultra vires and unenforceable;

(v) A further writ, order or direction declaring that charging of royalty on “sale of processed mineral” as contemplated by Rule 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is beyond the ambit and purview of Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and ultra vires and unenforceable;

(vi) In the alternative to prayer (iv) and (v), an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that, in any event, Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 inserted by the Central Government, Ministry of Mines have no applicability to hydrocarbons such as coal and lignite.

Apart from the aforementioned main reliefs in all these writ applications, the petitioner Tata Steel Limited has also challenged the various demand notices issued by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribag / Ramgarh / Dhanbad, raising demands of additional royalty in accordance with Rules 64-B and 64-C of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

3. The petitioner Tata Steel limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacture of iron and steel having its steel plant at Jamshedpur, in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner is having mining lease over two collieries in the Districts of Ramgarh and Dhanbad. In the District of Ramgarh the collieries of the Tata Steel are “West Bokaro Colliery” whereas in the District of Dhanbad, it is having “Jharia group of collieries”. Admittedly both these group of collieries are the captive collieries of the Tata Steel limited, meaning thereby, that the coal extracted in these collieries are used after its necessary washing and beneficiation only for the purpose of the manufacture of steel at its steel plant at Jamshedpur, whereas the middlings, tailings, rejects, de-shale etc., generated during the washing process, are partly used as fuel in the petitioner’s own power plants situated within some of the collieries and partly sold to the consumer after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. It may be stated that the coal extracted directly from the mines are known as run-of-mines coal, or ROM coal, and we are informed that ROM coal may either be Washery Grade-IV Coal, or any of the higher grades, up to Steel Grade. We are also informed that in all the collieries of the petitioner Tata Steal Limited, the ROM coal extracted directly from the