SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(MP) 542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.K. DUBE, A.R. NAVKAR, JJ.
Sardarsingh - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
M.P. No. 90 of 1976 (G)
Decided On : 24-02-1979

Headnote:Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 (M.P.)-R.37-Government not changing the rate of royalty during the subsistence of the contract period-provisions of rule 17 not attracted-additional demand of royalty by Government illegal.

Short Note :

1. The petitioner was the successful bidder of Madewah paving stone quarry at Satanwara, District Shivpuri. The auction was held after due notification published in Government Gazette. Therefore an agreement was executed on 2-12-1969. The Government by a notification dated 5-9-1970 informed the petitioner that the royalty on paving stone has been increased from Rupee 1 to Rs. 2/- per ton. As a result the petitioner would be required to pay twice the agreed amount of royalty. The petitioner protested contending that the rate of royalty cannot be unilaterally increased.

Held: It is settled that rule 37 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1961 which permitted increase in the rate of royalty would not be attracted when the Government had not changed the rate of royalty during the subsistence of the contract period and when the royalty rate had increased prior to execution of the contract and prior to the period of lease deed. In other words the power to increase the royalty was available to the Government only when the increase in the royalty was made during the period of contract and if the change in royalty was made before or after the period of agreement, the Government could not subsequently make a demand on the basis of such an increase. In the present case, it is not disputed that the royalty was increased with effect from 17-1-1968. It was therefore very much before the period for which the contract has been given to the petitioner. The petition is therefore allowed. The additional demand made by the Government is hereby quashed. Dharamjeet v. State of M.P. and another M.P. No. 63 of 1971 decided on 30-1-1976.

Petition allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top