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 roya