K. Venkataswami, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) These appeals raise a common question of law and the parties are same in both the appeals. As a matter of fact, in Civil Appeal arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 16665/92 the High Court has simply followed its earlier judgment against which the Civil Appeal arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 16718/91 has been filed. In the circumstances, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) The respondent, a manufacturer of iron, steel and allied products, entered into an agreement of lease in respect of land measuring 569.6 acres with the State Government in order to meet its own requirements of raw materials, namely, limestone and dolomite. Under the agreement, it was agreed that the respondent was liable to pay royalty on the minerals extracted. However, the dispute that arises for consideration out of the two judgments of the High Court is whether the respondent is liable to pay royalty on the quantity of mineral extracted as it is or on the quantity arrived at after the said mineral had undergone a processing to remove waste and foreign matters. It was the case of the appellants that the respondent was liable to pay royalty on the mineral extracted while the case of the respondent was that the liability was on the quantity of mineral obtained after it had undergone the process.;