NEELAM KUMAR v. The State Of Bihar

Mr. Sinha, learned special P.P. to Mines Department admitted that if one Department of the State uses the minor mineral then notwithstanding, it being the Department of State it was liable to pay royalty to the Department of Mines of the Sate. This, he submits is the true import of Rule 40 with its Sub-Rules. Ordinary earth was earlier not a declared minor mineral. It was declared minor mineral in the year 2000 but it was only on

19.04.2006 that it issued notification fixing royalty and defining ordinary earth/soil as miner mineral. Therefore the liability if any would only arise thereafter. It is because of this recent imposition, probably the Department took the stand that royalty was never charged on earth filling. Be that as it may, for the petitioner it makes a little difference 5 because if he is charged with royalty then simultaneously and immediately the State would be under obligation to pay the same to the petitioner as reimbursement of cost incurred. The two obligations are simultaneous and reciprocatory. Thus found the stand of the Treasury Officer being correct, the Respondents in the Department of Rural Works Department are obliged in respect of the said agreement to deducted royalty from the bills payable to the petitioner in proportion to the minor mineral used by the petitioner but at the same time are under legal obligation to reimburse petitioner for the same amount to the same extent simultaneously. It is made clear that now that controversy is over, no sooner payments on account of royalty are made to the petitioner, deduction would be permissible, bills of petitioner should now be cleared for payment preferably within one month. The writ application is thus disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)