2000 (8) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fixation of the rate of royalty for minor minerals u/s 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
2. Ambit of delegation of power by the Parliament to the State Government under Section 15.
3. Validity of the impugned notifications dated 17th August 1991 and 28th September 1994.
4. Requirement of placement of rules and notifications before the State Legislature u/s 28(3).

Summary:

1. Fixation of the Rate of Royalty for Minor Minerals u/s 15:
The central issue was the fixation of the rate of royalty for minor minerals under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The appellants argued that the rate should be within the bounds of 12% of the sale price at the pit's mouth as per Item 54 of the Second Schedule of the Act. The respondents contended that the guideline from the D.K. Trivedi case did not restrict the State's power to this extent.

2. Ambit of Delegation of Power by the Parliament to the State Government:
The court examined whether the delegation of power to the State Government under Section 15 was unbridled and without guidelines. It was held that the delegation was not excessive and was within sufficient guidelines provided by the Preamble, object and reasons, and various provisions of the Act. The court also noted that the guidelines for the exercise of rule-making power under Section 15(1) are to be found in the object for which such power is conferred, and the illustrative matters set out in sub-section (2) of Section 13.

3. Validity of the Impugned Notifications Dated 17th August 1991 and 28th September 1994:
The court upheld the validity of the notifications enhancing the rate of royalty. It was found that the State Government acted within the ambit of the power delegated to it, and such delegation was with sufficient guidelines and checks. The court also noted that the enhancement of royalty on the facts and circumstances of this case could not be said to be arbitrary or otherwise illegal.

4. Requirement of Placement of Rules and Notifications Before the State Legislature u/s 28(3):
The court discussed the requirement of placing rules and notifications before the State Legislature as a form of check on the State Government's exercise of power as a delegatee. It was found that the impugned notification dated 28.9.1994 was not placed before the State Legislature as required by sub-section (3) of Section 28. However, it was held that non-placement of the said notification would not invalidate the same, as the requirement is only directory.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld, albeit on different reasoning. The impugned notifications were found to be valid, and the delegation of power to the State Government under Section 15 was deemed to be within sufficient guidelines and checks. The State Government was directed to place the notification dated 28.9.1994 before the State Legislature at the earliest.