Minor mineral royalty can be validly imposed, but retrospective royalty demands need clear authority of law.

Royalty on brick-earth and similar minor minerals is discussed as a delegated levy treated in substance as an impost akin to tax, with the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 recognising State power to regulate minor minerals under Sections 14 and 15. Brick-earth was treated as falling within the ordinary meaning of mineral, and its inclusion as a minor mineral was not unconstitutional. The text also notes that royalty demands cannot be applied retrospectively to a period before the relevant rules prescribed such levy, so demands for earlier extraction lacked authority of law, though prosecution notices for unauthorised extraction were not invalidated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether brick-earth is a mineral or minor mineral and whether royalty on minor minerals could validly be imposed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964; (ii) Whether the demand of royalty for the period 1958 to 1964 was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether brick-earth is a mineral or minor mineral and whether royalty on minor minerals could validly be imposed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964.

Analysis: Royalty on minerals was treated as an impost in the nature of tax and not as a fee. The constitutional scheme concerning legislative control over mines and mineral development, read with the special treatment of minor minerals under Sections 14 and 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, showed that the Union retained general control while the State Government was authorised to make rules for minor minerals. Brick-earth, clay and similar material were held to fall within the ordinary meaning of minerals, and the inclusion of brick-earth in the definition of minor minerals was not unconstitutional. The rule-making power under Section 15 was wide enough to cover royalty as a condition connected with grant of mining leases and quarrying permits.

Conclusion: Brick-earth is a minor mineral, and the State Government had power to frame rules for royalty in respect of minor minerals; this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of royalty for the period 1958 to 1964 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The impugned demands were made for a period anterior to the commencement of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. The rules providing for royalty could not be applied retrospectively to a period when no such rate was prescribed for the relevant extraction, and the demand could not be enforced against persons who had not taken mining leases under the 1964 Rules. While the notices concerning prosecution for unauthorised extraction under Rule 37 were not held invalid, the royalty demands themselves lacked authority of law for the earlier period.

Conclusion: The royalty demand for 1958 to 1964 was invalid and the notices demanding that royalty were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of the retrospective royalty demand, while the statutory competence of the State to regulate and levy royalty on minor minerals was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Royalty on minor minerals may be validly imposed under delegated statutory power, but a rule-based royalty demand cannot operate retrospectively in the absence of authority of law for the period concerned.

---