Majmudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted in both the petitions.
(2.) Two main questions are involved in these four appeals, namely, whether Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is ultra vires the Constitution and secondly whether the Notification dated 1st August 1991 issued by the Central Government under Section 9(3) of the Act is ultra vires, illegal and inoperative in law. On these common questions we have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and are, therefore, disposing of these appeals by this common judgment.
(3.) A few relevant facts leading to these cases may be stated at the outset. Appellants in C.A. Nos. 275/94 and 276/94 being State of M.P. and Union of India respectively, were respondent before the High Court is Special Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 10/93. The respondent in these appeals were the original writ petitioners in the High Court. These respondents are purchasers of coal from Coal India Ltd. which was respondent No.3 in writ petition. The writ petitioners complained that the Notification dated 1st August, 1991 issued by the Union of India fixing new rates of royalty on various varieties of coal was illegal and inoperative in law on various grounds, that before 1-8-1991 royalty was payable at the rate of Rs.6.50 per ton vide earlier Notification but the same was sought to be increased to Rs.120/- per ton by the new Notification. Since the said Notification was issued under Section 9(3) of the Act, it was submitted that the said provision confers unguided, unchanennized and arbitrary discretion to the Central Government to increase the rates of royalty to any higher amount and as no guidelines were provided for effecting the said increases either under this Section or elsewhere in the Act, the Section itself is an instance of excessive delegation of essential legislative power and hence it was void, that royalty on various varieties of coals was fixed in the year 1981 vide earlier Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 9(3). Proviso to Section 9(3) permits revision of the rates of royalty once during every three years. In the year 1982, several coal producing States imposed coal development cess and started receiving revenue for effecting development of their mining areas, till they were challenged by consumers of coal by filing several writ petitions in the High Courts. The controversy ultimately came to be decided by this Court in Orissa Cement Limited v. State of Orissa AIR 1991 SC 1676 whereby such cess was held to be invalid and beyond the legislative competence of the State Government. It appears that soon after the aforesaid invalidation of the cess the coal producing States were faced with problem of refunding the amounts obtained by them that far. They, therefore, approached the Central Government for help in the matter. In pursuance to the said approach, the Parliament passed an Act validating the ceses paid by the coal consumers up to the date of the judgment by issuing an ordinance styled as 'The Cess and other Taxes on Minerals Validation Ordinance, 1992'. We are not concerned with the said Ordinance and the subsequent Act in the present proceedings. It appears that since the State Government had suffered financial losses because of the invalidation of the cess, they also approached the Central Government for help in the matter. As a consequence thereof, a working group was constituted in this behalf. The said working group suggested an increase in the royalty to the extent of Rs.70/- per ton of coal. The working group also found sufficient justification for compensating the coal producing States to the extent of 100 per cent of the loss caused by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Since the recommendation was accepted by the Central Government, the impugned Notification was issued by the Central Government. According to the writ petitioners before the High Court, the increase in the rates of royalty pursuant to the Notification was to the extent of 400 per cent to 2000 per cent as compared to the royalty fixed in 1981 on various varieties of coal. It was further contended before the High Court by the writ petitioners that the royalty fixed in the impugned Notification was payable to the concerned State Government by the coal companies. The coal companies passed on this burden to their customers and showed this amount clearly and specifically in the bills issued by them. The coal companies have no objection to the Notification and are supporting the Central Government in this behalf. The purchasers being consumers of coal were the affected parties who challenged the said Notification. About 60 petitions were filed before the M. P. High Court by various consumers of coal. The High Court heard learned counsel for all the respective parties. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 17th December, 1993 took the view that Section 9(3) of the Act was not invalid or illegal on any ground. However, so far as impugned Notification on Section 9(3) was concerned, the High Court was of the opinion that the said Notification was lacking in bona fides and as it was issued for meeting for financial deficiency suffered by States on account of the judgment of this Court in Orissa Cement case (supra) it was outside the scope of Section 9(3) of the Act. Having reached that conclusion, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the impugned Notification dated 1-8-1991 but so far as the question of refund was concerned, the High Court took the view that no direction for refund of any amount could be issued as the burden of enhanced royalty was already passed on to the customers by the manufacturers. Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed. This order of the Division Bench dated 17-12-1993 is brought in challenge by the State of Madhya Pradesh by filing C.A. No. 275/94 after obtaining special leave to appeal against the said order from this Court. The Union of India has also challenged the very same order in C.A. No. 276/94 after obtaining special leave. So far as Special leave Petition No. 8190/94 is concerned, it is filed by M/s. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. one of the consumers of coal, which has also felt aggrieved by the hike in royalty of coal as imposed by the impugned Notification. It raised the very same contention in the High Court by way of Misc. Civil Case No. 833/93. The writ petition filed by M/s. Birla Jute Industries Ltd. Misc. Petition was also partly allowed by the High Court following its order dated 17-12-1993. By the order dated 28-1-1994, it was held that the petitioner therein was entitled to the same benefit on the same lines as was available to the writ petitioners in matter decided on 17-12-1993. The petitioner, M/s. Birla Jute Industries Ltd., by special leave has contended that the High Court was in error in not granting refund of the illegally collected royalty as impugned Notification was stuck down by the High Court. In appeal, pursuant to SLP(C) No. 3395/94, the State of M.P. has brought in challenge a similar order passed by the High Court on 17-12-1993 in Misc. Petition No. 7907/92. There are number of other civil appeals arising from the similar orders passed in the said writ petitions. But as we have heard learned counsel in these four matters, we are disposing of only these four matters in the first instance by this judgment.;