( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for writs of Certiorari and Mandamus seeking to quash the order of the Collector and mining Officer, dated 3-6-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-F) and the order, dated 236-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-G) making a demand from the petitioner for Rs. 16,722. 00 on the premises that the limestone quarried by the petitioner was for its use as minor mineral, though the petitioner had paid a royalty for quarried limestone as minor mineral at the rate of RS. 2-00 per ton. The royalty to be "paid for limestone as a major mineral would be Rs. 1-25 per ton.

( 2 ) ON 10-11-1965 the petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for ten years. In the application filed there was no mention of the fact whether the limestone was intended to be quarried for being used in kiln for building purposes. But the only description given was that it was intended for burning. On that basis the petitioner was granted a lease.

( 3 ) THE said lease was the subject-matter of a writ petition, namely, Misc. Petn. No. 3 of 19g8. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 2-9-1970, dismissed the writ petition subject to certain observations. Thereafter the lease was made the subject-matter of a writ petition, namely. Misc. Petition No. 323 of 1968 (Petitioner's Annexure-B ). The Division Bench deciding that case by order, dated 14-12-1970, allowed the said writ petition. It may be relevant to reproduce the observations of the Division Bench to 'the following effect; "there is nothing to indicate what quantity of limestone was removed _ from the quarry area for purposes consistent with its being a minor mineral. No presumption can be raised since the lease itself was not for such a purpose. Hence it will have to be found in respect of material removed from the quarry whether it had been removed for a purpose which would make it a minor mineral and unless that is established a charge at the higher rate cannot be made. There is nothing to indicate that there was any such investigation by the Collector or by the Mining officer. We consequently quash the demand. But the Collector and the mining Officer will be at liberty to investigate into the matter and if they are able to ascertain as to what quantity had been removed as a minor mineral, they may again estimate the royalty on that material at the scheduled rate. "

( 4 ) ON those premises the petition was allowed. As a result of the Division Bench order, the Mining Officer was required to ascertain whether any quantity of limestone had been removed for a purpose consistent with its being used as minor mineral. ( 5 ) IT is further pertinent to note that the petitioner had paid royalty at the rate of rs. 2. 00 per ton on the basis that the limestone was being used for a purpose consistent with its being used as minor mineral. In this connection it is also pertinent to note that the Mining Inspector has furnished a schedule (Petitioner's annexure-D), which showed that the petitioner had paid Rs. 36,951. 25 paise in excess of the royalty that would be due from him for the limestone removed as a major mineral. However, by orders impugned (Petitioner's Annexures-F and G), the procedure that the Mining Officer was directed to follow vide order, dated 1412-1970, in Misc. Petition No. 328 of 1968, was actually reversed. The reasoning of the Mining Officer in the order, dated 23-6-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-G) is that the accounts maintained by the petitioner as also the persons who had purchased the limestone from the petitioner had kept a combined account of all sales, which did not disclose that the limestone had been sold for a purpose consistent with its being used as a' major mineral, For that reason the Mining officer concluded that the inference should be that the sale of limestone by the petitioner to other persons, was for a purpose consistent with its being used as a minor mineral. With due respect to the Mining Officer, we may o