Royalty on minor minerals upheld as valid; legislative laying requirement treated as directory, and enhancement found non-arbitrary.

For minor minerals, the State Government's power to fix and enhance royalty was upheld as flowing from the Act's scheme, history, and related provisions; it was not confined to the ceiling suggested by Item 54 of the Second Schedule. The requirement to lay the notification before the State Legislature under Section 28(3) was treated as directory, so non-placement did not by itself invalidate the 28 September 1994 notification, though placement was directed. The enhancement was also found not to be confiscatory, arbitrary, or otherwise illegal on the facts. The challenge to the royalty notifications therefore failed and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government, while fixing and enhancing royalty on minor minerals under the Act, was confined to the ceiling suggested from Item 54 of the Second Schedule and the earlier decision on delegation; (ii) whether the impugned notification dated 28 September 1994 became invalid for non-placement before the State Legislature under Section 28(3) of the Act; (iii) whether the enhancement of royalty was arbitrary or otherwise illegal on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government, while fixing and enhancing royalty on minor minerals under the Act, was confined to the ceiling suggested from Item 54 of the Second Schedule and the earlier decision on delegation.

Analysis: The Act distinguishes major minerals from minor minerals. Section 14 excludes the general restrictions in Sections 5 to 13 from application to minor minerals, and Section 15 confers rule-making power on the State Government for minor minerals. The earlier decision upholding Section 15 did not hold that royalty for minor minerals was frozen by Item 54 of the Second Schedule. The Court treated the earlier observations on Sections 4 to 12 as guidance, not as a ceiling. It further held that guidance for the State Government is gathered from the Preamble, the object and reasons, the scheme of the Act, Sections 15(1-A), 15(3), 18 and 23-C, the history of regulation, and the different treatment of minor minerals as local resources.

Conclusion: The State Government was not confined to the ceiling suggested from Item 54 of the Second Schedule, and the notifications were within the scope of the delegated power.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notification dated 28 September 1994 became invalid for non-placement before the State Legislature under Section 28(3) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 28(3) requires rules and notifications made by the State Government to be laid before the State Legislature. The Court held that this laying requirement is a constitutional and statutory check on the executive, but it is not an approval mechanism and does not make validity depend on actual modification or affirmative assent. On the facts, the Court was not satisfied that the notification had been properly placed, but it held that the omission did not nullify the notification because the requirement is directory. The Court also noted that the legislative control contemplated by mere laying still has real significance through scrutiny and accountability.

Conclusion: The notification was not invalidated by non-placement before the State Legislature, though the State was directed to place it at the earliest.

Issue (iii): Whether the enhancement of royalty was arbitrary or otherwise illegal on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court found no material showing that the enhancement was confiscatory, arbitrary, or unreasonable. It took into account the history of revisions, the nature of royalty as part of the price for parting with the State's mineral wealth, and the absence of any demonstrated legal infirmity in the quantum fixed by the State.

Conclusion: The enhancement of royalty was not shown to be arbitrary or otherwise illegal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the royalty notifications failed, the State's delegated power was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In the regime governing minor minerals, the State Government's power to fix and enhance royalty is valid if supported by the Act's overall policy, scheme, history, and related provisions; the requirement of laying before the Legislature is only a directory check and non-placement does not by itself invalidate the notification.

---