CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 01 RAJ CK 0044

Pathar Khan Kaamgaar Union vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 11 January 1999 · Citation: AIR 1999 Raj 333 : (1999) 1 RLW 597 : (1999) 2 WLC 92 : (1999) 1 WLN 62

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.J. Shethna, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 34 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 391 words

B.J. Shethna, J.—The petitioner -- a union of the licensees working in the mining area, has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 24-12-98 (Annex. 1) passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur -- respondent No. 3 whereby the yearly licence fees of Somanara and Kalor is raised from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2100/- per year w.e.f. 15-2-99 and 1-1-99 respectively.

2.

Learned counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner challenged the same on the ground that it was in clear breach of Rule 29(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, "the Rules"). Rule 29(5) reads as under :--

"The mining Engineer may enhance or reduce the licence fee in respect of any particular area of block provided that the enhancement of licence fee shall not be made before a period of 4 years from any such previous enhancement."

3.

The submission of Mr. Vyas was that the Mining Engineer cannot raise the licence fee before a period of four years from any such previous enhancement. He submitted that last time it was enhanced on 1-1-96 and now it is sought to be enhanced from 1-1-99 i.e. within three years, which is less than period of four years. He further submitted that Rule 29(5) clearly provides that the enhancement of licence fee shall not be made before a period of four years from any such previous enhancement. He submitted that the word, "shall" shows that the Mining Engineer was prohibited from raising the licence fee before a period of four years from the previous enhancement. At first sight, this submission of Mr. Vyas looks attractive. However, reading the entire Rule 29(5) of the Rules as a whole, the word, "shall" should be read as "may" and not "must". The way in which the prices are increasing, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong if the yearly licence fee is enhanced from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2100/- within three years.

4.

Before parting, I must state that order of raising yearly licence fee by Rs. 900/- per year should not be entertained by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This type of matters are of trivial nature, which should not take more time of this Court.

5.

In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.