MANBHAR DEVI AGARWALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                        [2016] ll S.C.R. 739


                  MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL                                  A
                                 v.
             THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No.11259of2016)
                                                                        B
                       NOVEMBER25, 2016
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.)
      Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1986:
       rr. 3(2)(xx),18,48 - Government circulars providing for
payment of 'royalty' on minerals used by contractors in construction
                                                                        c
work - Appellant, a contractor carried out construction work using
minerals purchased from open market - Royalty deducted from
appellants bills - Plea of appellant that payment of royalty is to be
made by lessee or licensee granted right of excavation of minerals,
appellant being a contractor, not carrying out any mining operation     D
cannot be saddled with payment of royalty- Respondent contended
that though royalty is to be paid by lessee/licensee to whom mining
lease is granted however, in order to stop use of illegally mined
minerals in construction works, contractors only need to show that
minerals procured by themfrom open market is legally mined mineral      E
on which royalty has been paid and on such proofthereto, no royalty
would be payable subsequently by the contractor - High Court,
relying on its decision in R.S Shekhawat's case, directed appellant
to approach mining department for.~~fund of the amount deducted
from appellants bill on successfully proving that minerals used were    F
legally mined on which royalty was already paid - On appeal, held:
Circulars issued by government required payment of royalty with
regard to only those minerals used by contractors for which no
royalty was paid - They did not require payment of royalty for
minerals used on which royalty was already paid once - Object of        G
these circulars was to ensure that contractors do not use minerals
which are not royalty paid - High Courts direction to appellant,
relying on R.S Shekhawat's case, to approach the mining department
amply protects its interest- However, appellant also given liberty to
approach respondent no.2-Mining Engineer showing proof to
                                                                        H
                               739
740            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      f2016111 S.C.R.



A     establish that on minerals used by it royalty was paid as per rules -
      Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -ss.2,
      3(e), 9(2), 15, 23C - Mines and Minerals.
             Government circulars providing for payment of royalty on
      minerals used by contractors in construction work - Letter issued
B     by Government requesting City Municipal Corporation to ensure
      compliance of said circulars - Writ petition by appellant seeking
      quashing ofthis letter, without challenging the said circulars - High
      Court decided the writ petition - Propriety of - Held: High Court
      ought to have decided the writ petition only after deciding upon the
C     said letter - However, this letter only sought compliance of
      government circulars imposing royalty and since these circulars were
      not challenged by appellant, no fault can be found with the s_aid
      letter only seeking compliance of circulars - There being no
      challenge to the circulars, the State had no opportunity to defend
D     its policy - Not appropriate for Supreme Court to embark upon the
      adjudication of the Government Scheme.
            Disposing of the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 The letter dated 26.03.2002 issued by the State
      Government impressed upon Commissioner of Jaipur Municipal
 E
      Corporation to ensure compliance of Government Circulars
      seeking realization of the royalty from the contractors for use of
      the minerals. The appellant in writ petition had only challenged
      the letter dated 26.03.2002 but had not challenged the
      Government Circulars issued earlier which were sought to be
 F    complied by the said letter. [Para 35] [751-A-B]
        1.2 There being no challenge to the said circulars in the
  writ petition, the State had no opportunity to defend its above
  policy of seeking realization of the royalty from the contractors
G for use of the minerals. Thus, it is not appropriate for this Court
  to embark upon the adjudication of above Government Scheme.
  The letter dated 26.03.2002 being only a letter to ensure
  compliance of Circulars by which royalty was sought to be
  recovered, no fault can be found in the said letter. [Para 36] [751-
  D-E]
H
 MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                            741


      2. The circulars issued by the State Government have to               A
be interpreted to mean that they require payment of royalty with
regard to only those minerals which have been used by the
contractor for which no royalty was paid. The circular cannot be
interpreted to mean as requiring payment ofroyalty for minerals
used for which once royalty was already paid. The State has come            B
up with the above mentioned circulars only with object to ensure
that contractors do not use minerals which are not royalty paid.
[Para 40) [753-D-E]
      3.1 The High Court relying on R.S Shekhawat's case had
permitted the appellant to approach the mining department for               C
refund of the amount which was deducted from the bill in event it
successfully proves that minerals used were minerals for which
royalty was already paid. The aforesaid directions amply protect
the interest of the appellant. [Para 41] [753-F]
      3.2 However, the appellant is given liberty to approach the           D
mining engineer, Respondent No. 2 by a written representation
giving details of amount deducted from its bills or amount withheld
along with the details of minerals used with details of proof to
establish that minerals used were minerals for which royalty was
paid as per 1986 rules. The Respondent No. 2 may consider the               E
representation and, in event it is found that appellant is.entitled
to refund ofany amount, appropriate consequential action may be
taken. [Para 42) [753-G-H; 754-A-B]
      R.S. Shekhawat & Others v. State of U.P. SBCWP No.
      359 of 1998 decided on 28.02.2001 by Rajasthan High                   F
      Court - referred to.
      CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11259
of 2016.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .12.2008 of the Division        G
Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench at Jaipur
in D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 231 of2008 in S. B. Civil W. P.
No. 3191 of 2002.
      Sanjeev Kumar, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Advs. for the
Appellant.                                                                  H
742             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 11 S.C.R.


A            Harsha Vinoy, Milind Kumar,Advs. forthe Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave Granted.
             2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High
 B    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 17 .12.2008
      in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 231 of2008 by which judgment, the
      Civil Special Appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and orderof
      Learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2007 was dismissed. Brief facts
      necessary to be noted for deciding the appeal are:-
 c           The appellant, a contractor, licensed by Nagar Nigam, Jaipur has
      been carrying out constructions ofbuildings, roads, drains, footpaths, etc ..
      The appellant for carrying out his construction work uses Bazri, stone,
      grit, moram, etc. which is claimed to be purchased from an open market
      at Jaipur.
D
             3. State ofRajasthan has issued various Government Orders
      dated 20.02.1994, 08.11.1996 and 20.11.1996 by which provision of
      deduction of2% towards the royalty of minerals from bills of contractors
      of the construction department was made. The State of Rajasthan
      modified the scheme by issuing an order dated 13.11.2000 by which the
 E    earlier Government Orders providing for deductions of2% as royalty of
      minerals from the bill was done away. A new scheme was enforced
      vide order dated 13.11.2000. Under the new scheme, the copy of work
      order issued by Construction Department to the contractors containing
      details of the quantity of the minerals used for construction was required
 F    to be produced before the Mining Engineer/ Assistant Mining Engineer,
      who before the commencement of the mining work were required to
      issue short term permission letter for use of mineral in the construction.
         4. Another Government Order was issued dated 03.10.2001 by
   which, direction nos. 2 &4 as contained in the circular dated 13.11.2000
 G were modified.
            5. Further, directions were issued on 25.01.2002. A letter dated
      26.03.2002 was issued by the Government to the Chief Executive
      Engineer, Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation referring to
      Government Orders dated 03. I 0.2001 and 13.11.2000 and requesting
 H
 MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                743
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

the Jaipur Municipal Corporation to ensure compliance of the aforesaid          A
Government Orders. It was further stated that unti 1the No Dues certificate
is issued in favour of the contractors by the Department of Mining,
payment against final bill of the contractors be not made so that
Department and State may not suffer any kind of revenue loss. The
appellant filed the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3191 of2002           B
praying for the following reliefs:-
        " a. By way of writ, order or direction the order dated
        26.03.2002 Annexure-5 passed by the respondent No. 3 may
        kindly be quashed and set aside.
        b. by way of writ order or direction, the respondents may
                                                                                c
        be restrained not to collect royalty from the petitioners on
        purchase of Bazri, grit, stone, moram etc from the open
        market.
        c. by way of writ order or direction, the respondents may               D
        be restrained to not to levy royalty from the running and
        final bills ofthe contractors i.e. petitioners awarded prior to
        26.03.2002.
        d. any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which
        the petitioner may be entitled to in the circumstances of the           E
        case may be issued in his favour.
        e. cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the
        petitioner. "
       6. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was disposed of by
                                                                                F
the learned Single Judge on 20.02.2007. Learned Single Judge disposed
of writ petition in terms of an earlier judgment in SBC WP No. 359 of
1998, R.S.Shekhawat & Others Vs. State o/U.P. decided on 28.02.2001.
       7. The appellant aggrieved by the decision oflearned Single
Judge dated 20.02.2007 filed DBCSA No. 231 of2008. The Division                 G
Bench held that there is no illegality in order passed by the learned Single
Judge in R.S.Sltekltawat and others case (Supra), hence, the learned
Single Judge disposing ofthe writ petition ofthe appellant did not commit
an error. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision
of the D.B. dated 17 .12.2008, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
                                                                                H
744             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         f2016l 11 S.C.R.


A            8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal
      contends that both learned Single Judge and Division Bench of High
      Court did not decide the issues raised by the appellant in the writ petition
      and have disposed of the writ petition in terms of earlier judgment of
      learned Single Judge, R.S.Shekhawat and others in which judgment no
B     issues were decided. He submits that Judgment in R.S.Shekhawat Case
      indicates that the Court did not enter into the coITectness or otherwise of
      the notification dated 22.09.1994 & 03.07.1994 which were under
      challenge. The Court noticing the new scheme as issued by Government
      Order dated 13.11.2000, noted the request of the appellant that matter
      may be directed to be examined by the Department of Mines on which
 c
      request the writ petition was disposed of.
          9. It is submitted that the above judgment did not decide the
   issues raised by the appellant which were required to be considered. It is
   further submitted that the payment ofroyalty is to be made by lessees or
 D licensees who have been granted right of excavation of minerals i.e. a
   holder ofmining lease or license. The appellant who has been purchasing
   the minerals from the open market cannot be saddled with the payment
   ofroyalty. The appellant is not canying out any mining operation so as to
   be asked to make payment of royalty.
 E         10. Learned counsel for the State disputing the submissions of
   counsel for the appellant submits that the various Government Orders by
   the State ofRajasthan have been issued to prevent the illegal mining i.e.
   use of the minerals without payment of the royalty. It is submitted that
   the Government Orders provide for a mechanism to check illegal mining
 F and in event minerals used are minerals which are royalty paid minerals,
   there is no liability and the Government only requires verification of
   such facts i.e. whether minerals used by the contractors are royalty
   paid or not.       It is submitted that direction for withholding the payment
   till the verification of above facts are only for the purpose of ensuring
 G that minerals used are not illegally mined minerals without payment of
   royalty. He submit that no error was committed by learned Single Judge
   and the Division Bench in disposing of the writ petition giving liberty to
   the writ petitioner to approach the competent authorities in the mining
   department to prove that minerals used by them are all royalty paid.
 H
 MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                            745
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J .]

       11. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for         A
the parties and have perused the records.
      12. The Parliament has enacted Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for the development and
regulation of mines and minerals. The Union control on regulation of
mines and development of minerals has been declared by vi1tue of Section    B
2 of 1957 Act. Section 3(e) defines 'Minor Minerals' which is to the
following effect:-
       "3(e). 'Minor Minerals' means building stones, gravel,
       ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for
       prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central
                                                                            c
       Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
       declare to be a minor mineral;"
     13. By Section 15 of the Act, the State Government has been
empowered to make rules on Minor minerals.                                  D
      14. Section 9(2) provides for payment of royalty by the holder of
mining lease. Section 9(2) is as follows:-
        "9(2). The holder ofa mining lease granted on or after the
        commencement ofthis Act shall pay royalty in respect ofany
        (mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent,                 E
        manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee)from the leased
        area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second
        Schedule in respect of that mineral. "
      15. By Act 25 of94, certain amendments have been incorporated
                                                                             F
in 1957 Act. One of the sections inserted by Amendment is Section 23C.
Section 23C(l) is as follows:-
        "23C. Power ofState Government to make rules for preventing
        illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals:-
        (1). The State Government may, by notification in the Official       G
        Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal mining,
        transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes
        connected therewith.
        (2) .............................. "
                                                                            H
746             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        r20I6l ll S.C.R.


A           16. The State ofRajasthan has framed Rajasthan Mines and
      Minerals Concession Rules, 1986, in exercise of power under Section
      15. Rule 3(2)(XX) defines 'Royalty' which is to the following effect:-
              " Royalty means the charge payable to the Government in
              respect of the ore or mineral excavated, removed or utilized
B             from any land as prescribed in Schedule-I. "
             17. Rule 18 provides for conditions which are to be included in
      every mining lease. According to Rule 18(1 )(b ), the holder ofa mining
      lease granted on or after commencement of these rules shall pay royalty
      in respect of any mineral removed by him from and/or consumed within
c     the leased area at the time being as specified in Schedule I in respect of
      that mineral.
            18. Rule 48 contains various provisions with regard to
      unauthorized working. Various provisions regarding undertaking of mining
0     operation not in accordance with the mining lease have been contained
      in Rule 48 which also includes seizure of illegally mined minerals and
      recovery of royalty and tax chargeable as well as compounding charges.
             19. Above statutory provisions clearly indicates that excavation
      of minor minerals, as per mining lease or permit is subject to payment of
E     royalty and the rent as prescribed in the rules. The liability to make
      payment of royalty is on the person who excavates the minerals under
      the lease or license.
         20. The provisions also indicate that in event of illegal mining or
  excavation of minerals without payment of royalty, the rules empower
F exercise of various powers including seizure of minerals, recovery of
  royalty, taxes and compounding charges on such minerals.
         21. The first submission which has been raised by learned counsel
  for appellant is that learned Single Judge and Division Bench did not
  consider the issues raised in the writ petition and disposed of the matter
G in terms of earlier judgment of R.S.Shekhawat case in which case no
  issues were decided. The judgment of R.S.Shekhawat is brought on
  record asAnnexure P-2.
            22. The above judgment indicates that in writ petition, notification
H
  MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                747
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

 dated 22.09.1994 and 03.07.1995 by which 2% deductions were made                A
 from running bills submitted by petitioners to the Public Works Department
 and other State Depaiiments towards royalty of minerals was under
 challenge. The petitioners of that case were engaged in business of
 constructing roads, buildings and were using different varieties of minerals
 purchasing it from the open market. However, when the writ petition             B
 came for hearing, the court noticed the subsequent development by which
 the aforesaid two notifications were substituted by a new scheme dated
 13.11.2000.
        23. The petitioner of that case, in view of the subsequent
· development did not press for adjudication regarding the notification dated    c
  22.04.1994 and 03.07.1994 but prayed for the refund of the royalty
  deducted from their bills. The petitioner suggested that the matter may
  be examined by the Department of Mines itself. It is useful to note
  following observation in the judgment:-
         "... as already stated the counsel for the petitioner as also           D
         other counsels appearing in all these writ petitions, no longer
         consider it necessary to insistfor adjudication ofthe question
         as to whether the two notifications dated 22.09.1994 and
         03.07.1994 are legal or not in view of the.fact that a new
         scheme on 13'" November 2000 referred to hereinbefore has               E
         been implemented but insofar as deductions already made
         by the Public Works Department and other Departments on
         behalf of the Mining Department is concerned, the same
         requires adjudication by the Department of Mining to
         ascertain whether the petitioners at any point of time prior            F
         to 13'" November 2000 had used minerals in their
         construction operations or not which were not royalty paid
         and for this purpose the counsel for the petitioners have
         themselves suggested that the matter be examined by the
         Department of Mines in order to come to a just conclusion               G
         whether any wrongful deduction had been made in the
         running bills by the Public Works Department and other
         Departments or not in regard to the amount of royalty for
         the minerals used. .. "

                                                                                 H
748             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] II S.C.R.


A            24. The aforesaid writ petition wasthus disposed of giving liberty
      to the petitioner to approach the Department of Mines with the relevant
      records for assessment and explaining the position for whether the claim
      for refund or adjustment is sustainable or not.
             25. When the writ petition no. 3191 of2002 filed by the appellant
B     came for consideration on 20.02.2007, the learned Single Judge after
      considering the judgment in R.S.Shekhawat case, disposed of the writ
      petition with following directions:-
              " .. .Having perused the aforesaid judgment and considering
              the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I
c             am not persuaded to take any other view of the matter than
              the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid
              ;udgment.
                  The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of
              the aforesaid directions. The observations made and
D             directions given in the aforesaid judgment shall also apply
              to the present case. "
            26. The Division Bench also affirmed the aforesaid judgment.
             27. From the prayers as made in the writ petition, it is clear that
 E    principle prayer made by the writ petitioners was challenge to D.0. letter
      dated 26.03.2002 issued by the Office of Mining Engineer, Mines and
      Geology, addressed to Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur.
             28. The writ petition in R.S.Shekltawat case was decided on
      28.02.200 I by which date the letter dated 26.03.2002 was not even in
 F    existence. Letter dated 26.03.2002 being subsequent in point of time
      from the judgment of R.S.Shekhawat case, it was necessa1y to look
      into the content ofthe letter and to take decision thereafter. We thus find
      substance in the submission for the learned counsel for the appellant that
      letter dated 26.03.2002 was also necessary to be looked into before
G     deciding the writ petition of the appellant and without referring to the
      letter dated 26.03.2002, the writ petition of the appellant ought not to
      have been disposed of.
            29. We thus, in view ofthe above, proceed to examine the contents
      ofD.0. letter dated 26.03.2002 and submissions made by the appellant
H     in support of the appeal.
 MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJAS THAN                              749
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      30. The submission which has been pressed by the counsel of              A
the appellant is that payment of royalty is contemplated from holder of a
mining lease or permit. As noted above, the statutory scheme clearly
indicates that the royalty is required to be paid by mining lease holder or
permit holder for excavation of a minor mineral and no mineral is to be
removed or excavated without payment of the royalty. For mining of all         8
minerals payment of royalty is necessary.
       31. It is however also relevant to note that where mineral is
excavated/transported/removed without payment of royalty, there are
specific provisions for seizure of such minerals, recovery of royalty, tax
and compounding charges. The statute thus takes care of payment of             C
royalty for even those minerals which have been illegally mined or
excavated. The lease holders or pennitholders who excavate the minerals
under the lease or license are obliged to make payment of royalty and in
event any such mineral is found to be removed by lessee or their agents
without payment ofroyalty, statute contains ample provisions to ensure         o
recovery of royalty and fine etc.
       32. As noted above, the earlier Government Orders dated
22.09.1994 & 03.07.1995 provided for2% deductions from the running
bills of the contractors of public works department and other state
departments towards the royalty of minerals which were used by                 E
contractors in building ofroads etc. The Scheme as provided under the
aforesaid Government Orders were subsequently withdrawn and a new
scheme was enforced by Government Order dated 13.11.2000 and
03.10.2001. By Government Order 03.10.200 I modifying earlier direction
dated 13.11.2000, following was directed:-                                      p
        "After carrying out amendment in the even numbered Circular
        dated 13.11.2000 related to guidance to recover the royalty
        against the min;rals used in various works by the Contractors
        ofGovernment Works Department and substituting the Paras
        2 and 4 of the above Circular, following directions are                G
        issued:-
        " (2) Before commencement ofmining work by the Contractor
        of Construction Department, Short Term Permission Letter
        for mineral used in the construction from the Mining
                                                                               H
750           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 11 S.C.R.


A           Department shall be obtained and shall have to deposit the
            fee.fixed for it and cost ofKhanna Book with the Department,
            but amount o,f royalty payable on the quantity of the mineral
            mentioned in the short term License will be deducted from
            the running bills of the contractor by the concerned
8           Construction Department on the basis of the quantity o,f the
            mineral used in the construction.
            (4) On completion o,fthe construction work, complete details
            of the mineral such as quantity of the mineral, source of
            receiving mineral and details of the amount deducted from
C           the bill etc. utilized by the Contractor duly verified by the
            Executive Engineer of the concerned Construction
            Department shall be submitted to Mining Engineer/Assistant
            Mining Engineer within 15 days and further a Certificate of
            Construction Department will also be produced in which
o           quantity of the mineral used in the construction has been
            certified. "
          33. A further Government Order was issued on 25.01.2002 which
   has been brought on record as Annexure P-4 by which certain other
   directions were issued for ensuring that the payment of royalty regarding
 E all minerals used is made and the mining engineer was required to keep
   all details and the contractors were also to obtain short term permission
   for use of the minerals as per work order.
         34. A letter dated 26.03.2002 was issued by the Mining Engineer
  to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, where under the
F attention of Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur was
  drawn towards circular dated 03.10.200 I of the State Government and
  circular dated 13.11.2000, and the commissioner was informed that
  although the information of the circular has been sentearlierto the Jaipur
  Municipal Corporation, the amount of royalty has not been received.
G The Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation was requested to
  arrange to send royalty on the basis of the quantity of the minerals used
  in the contract of the construction work given to the contractor by
  subordinate offices of Jaipur Municipal Corporation before end of the
  financial year.
H
 MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                 751
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       35. The letter dated 26.03.2002 impressed upon Commissioner               A
of Jaipur Municipal Corporation to ensure compliance of Government
Orders dated 13.11.2000 and 03. I 0.2001 which has been noted earlier.
The appellant in writ petition has only challenged the letter dated
26.03.2002 but has not challenged the Govemment Circulars issued earlier
which was sought to be complied by the said letter.                              B
        36. Learned counsel forthe State is right in his submissions that
since appellant did not challenge the aforesaid two circulars of the State
Government where scheme for realization of the royalty from the
contractors for use of the minerals was enforced, the state had no occasion
to give all relevant facts pertaining to two earlier circulars by which          c
royalty was sought to be recovered. In the present writ petition only
prayer is to quash the letter dated 26.03.2002, which is only a letter to
Municipal Commissioner Jaipur to ensure compliance of Circulars dated
13.11.2000 & 03.01.2001. There being no challenge to Circular's
 13 .11.2000 & 03.01.2001 in the writ petition and the State had no              D
opportunity to defend its above policy it is not appropriate for this Court
to embark upon the adjudication of above Government Scheme. The
letter dated 26.03.2002 being only a letter to ensure compliance of
Circulars dated 13.01.2000 & 03.01.2001, no fault can be found in the
said letter.                                                                      E
        37. A Counter Affidavit has already been filed by the Respondent
No. 1 & 2, the State ofRajasthan and Mining Engineer in the present
appeal. In the counter affidavit, State has come up with the case that the
liabilities to pay royalty rest with contractors/lease holders to whom mining
lease are bestowed. It is further pleaded that in case the minerals have          F
been procured from the legal source on which royalty have been paid,
there is no royalty payable subsequently. In sub-paragraph IV of the
counter affidavit, following was stated:-
        "Jv. That the contents ofpara IV of the questions of law are
        wrong, ill-advised and are hence denied. It is submitted that            G
        the liability to pay royalty rests with the contractors/lease
        holders to whom the mining leases are besto>ved but in order
        to prevent losses on account of rampant illegal mining and
        subsequent usage of such illegally mined minerals in
                                                                                 H
752            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2016] 11 S.C.R.


A            construction work, the department of mines of the State of
             Rajasthan issued circulars fiwn time to time calling upon
             vendors/contractors registered with Public Works Depqrtment
             ofthe State who cany out construction works to place before
             it the records of the minerals having been purchased
 B           legitimately and that such minerals have not been procured
             from illegal mining to determine whether royalties on such
             minerals have been paid. In case, the minerals have been
             procured by vendors/contractor from illegal mining, the
             royalties due to the State can be recovered. The said circulars
c            categorically state that, in case minerals have been procured
             from legal sources on which royalties have been paid, there
             is no royalties payable subsequently. However, in case such
             minerals are procured.from illegal mining, then the royalties
             that have been usurped by the vendors/contractors must be
             paid to the State. There is no infirmity or illegality in such a
 D
             circular which is intended to legitimately collect the royalties
             due to the State and which have not been paid. "
            38. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in event appellant
      has procured the minerals from open market, the appellant should have
 E
      presented the documents to prove that such minerals used in construction
      work were purchased legitimately and then no royalty shall be paid to
      the State by the appellant on such mineral in such a case.
             39. It is submitted that in spite of department communication
      18.02.2008 and 16.02.2009 calling upon the appellant to produce the
 F    records of purchasing the minerals from open market, the appellant has
      failed to produce any such record of such purchase. In paragraph VIII,
      following has been stated:-
             " VIII. That the contents of corresponding para no. VIII are
             wrong and denied. It is submitted that as per the circular
 G           issued by the department under Rule 63 of Rajasthan Minor
             Minerals Concession Rules, 1986, it is mandatory for all
             contractors enlisted /registered with the Public Works
             Department cited above to obtain 'Short Terms Permit 'for
             the minerals to be used in construction works. In case the
 H
 MANBHAR DEVI AGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                753
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        petitioner purchased the minerals from the open market, then            A
        the petitioner should have produced the relevant documents
        to prove that such min!:rals used in construction works was
        purchased legitimately. However, in spite of the
        communications from the department dated 18. 02.2008 and
        16.02.2009 in this regard, the petitioner has failed to produce         B
        any 'documents that proves that the minerals have been
        purchased legitimately fi"om the open market. It is clear that
        the petitioner does not possess any documents that prove
        that such minerals have been procured through legitimate
        means and hence it is clear form the conduct ofthe petitioner           c
        that such minerals are procured illegally and are illegally
        mined. "
       40. The circulars issued by the State Government including the
circular dated 13.11.2000 as well as circular dated 03.10.2001 has to be
interpreted to mean that circular requires payment ofroyalty with regard        D
to only those minerals which have been used by the contractor for which
no royalty was paid. The circular cannot be interpreted to mean as requiring
payment ofroyalty for minerals used for which once royalty has already
been paid. The state has come up with the above mentioned Government
Order only with object to ensure that contractors do not use minerals            E
which are not royalty paid.
       41. Rajasthan High Court in R. S. Shekhawat's case as noted
above has permitted the contractor to approach the mining department
for refund of the amount which was deducted from the bill in event they
successfully prove that minerals used by them were minerals for which           F
royalty was already paid. The aforesaid directions clearly protected the
interest of the contractors and we are of the view that the appellant's
interests are amply protected with the aforesaid directions issued by
Rajasthan High Court.
      42. We, however, deem it appropriate to give liberty to the               G
appellant to approach the mining engineer, Respondent No. 2 by a written
representation giving details of amount deducted from its bills or amount
withheld along with the details ofminerals used by contractors with details
of proofto establish that minerals used were minerals for which royalty
                                                                                H
754             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016111 S.C.R.


A     was paid as per 1986 rules. The Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining
      Engineer, the Respondent No. 2 may consider the representation and
      take an appropriate and reasoned decision expeditiously preferably within
      three months of submission of the representation and, in event it is found
      that appellant is entitled to refund ofany amount, appropriate consequential
 B    action may be taken.
             43. The Civil Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.


      Divya Pandey                                               Appeal disposed of.