Royalty enhancement limits bar a fresh limestone increase within four years; company writ petitions remain maintainable through principal officers.

The four-year restriction on royalty enhancement barred a second increase in limestone royalty within that period, so a 1970 notification that abolished limestone grades and raised the rate was ultra vires because the limitation applied to the mineral as a whole, not merely to one classification. Writ petitions filed for the companies by principal officers were maintainable because the officers were conversant with the facts, and no prior special resolution was required. The impugned royalty demand therefore could not stand, and relief against the enhanced levy followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification dated 29 January 1970 enhancing royalty on limestone was valid under the four-year restriction in the proviso to Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; (ii) whether the writ petitions filed on behalf of the companies were maintainable when signed and verified by officers of the companies.

Issue (i): Whether the notification dated 29 January 1970 enhancing royalty on limestone was valid under the four-year restriction in the proviso to Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 9(3) permits amendment of the Second Schedule to enhance or reduce royalty, but the proviso bars enhancement of royalty more than once during any period of four years. The 1968 notification had already enhanced royalty in respect of limestone by restructuring the schedule and fixing different rates for superior and inferior grades. Once that power had been exercised in respect of the mineral limestone, a further enhancement within two years by abolishing the grades and increasing the rate applicable to inferior limestone amounted to another enhancement of royalty within the prohibited period. The restriction in the proviso applies to enhancement in respect of the mineral itself, not merely to a particular grade.

Conclusion: The 29 January 1970 notification was invalid and ultra vires Section 9(3) of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions filed on behalf of the companies were maintainable when signed and verified by officers of the companies.

Analysis: Under Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a corporation may act through its secretary, director, or other principal officer who is able to depose to the facts of the case. The affidavits showed that the officers who signed the petitions were principal officers fully conversant with the facts. A prior special resolution authorising presentation of the petitions was not required for maintainability.

Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned royalty notification could not stand, and the companies were entitled to relief against the enhanced demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute restricts enhancement of royalty to once in a four-year period, a later notification cannot indirectly impose a fresh enhancement within that period by altering classifications or abolishing grades of the same mineral.

---