- (1.) IN the present writ petition the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are restricted to the following three points:- 1) The Royalty Collection Contract cannot be auctioned because 30 days notice of auction has not been given in accordance with the provisions of Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986; 2) That the relaxation under Rule 65 of the Rules is not applicable to the minor lease holders, and 3) That there is complete abdication of power by relaxation of the rules which are contrary to the provisions of Section 15 of. the Mines and Minerals Regulations and Development Act, 1957.
(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the first point is that an advertisement was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 19-9-1992 for auctioning the right of collection of royalty in respect of Tehsil Bari and Baseri of Dholpur Division and Rajakhera of Tehsil Dholpur for sand stone and building stone. THE auction was to be held on 20-10-1992 and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 34 the auction notification has to be published at least 30 days before the date of auction and a copy of such notification has to be seat to the Panchayat Area/municipal Board having jurisdiction over the area in question. It is submitted that in the present case the copy of the notification was dispatched to the concerned Panchayat/municipal Board only on 9-10-1992 and the notification has not been published in the Gazette. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the copy of the notification was sent to the petitioner Kapur Chand Garg and that the provisions requiring publication of the notification in the Gazette have been dispensed with vide notification dated 13. 7. 1992. It has further been submitted that the requirement of publishing the notification in the news paper has been complied with and it is not necessary that the copy of the notification should be sent at least 30 days before the date of auction to the Panchayat or Municipal Board. We have considered over the matter. On the bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 34 (b) it is evident that the requirement of publishing the notification in the news paper 30 days before the date of auction have been complied with. The date of auction is also mentioned in the said notification. The requirement for publishing the notification in the Gazette has also been dispensed with and it is not necessary that the copy of the notification must be sent to the Panchayat or Municipal Board 30 days before the date of auction. The requirement of 30 days before the date of auction is applicable for the publication of the notification and not for sending the copy of the notification to the Panchayat or Municipal Board. We are, therefore, of the view that it was not necessary to send the copy of the notification to the Panchayat/municipal Board 30 days before the auction and the period of 30 days is not applicable for dispatching the copy of the notification to these Authorities. The judgment of State of Hary-ana and Others Vs. Jage Ram and Others (1), has no application since the sufficient advance notice was given in the newspapers. No illegality appears in this regard and, therefore, the contention on this point is rejected. The learned counsel has submitted in respect of the second point that the power of relaxation has been exercised in a very vague manner and that the power of relaxation could be exercised under Rule 65 in respect of a particular rule and in a general manner and that there must be some rule in existence which has been relaxed. It is submitted that the total rule cannot be relaxed and the respondents should have been very specific while relaxing the rule and the power should not have been exercised in a vague manner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the provisions of definition clause given under Rule 3 (xxii) specifically provides and defines royalty collection contract to mean a contract for the specified mineral or minerals given to collect royalty on behalf of the Government from the quarry licencees and short term permit holders who excavate minor minerals from the land specified under the contract where under the contract undertakes to pay fixed amount annually to the Government save as exempted under rule 58. It is submitted that the minor lease holders have not been included within the definition clause and, therefore, power could not be exercised in respect of the mining/ lease holders. It has further been submitted that there cannot be a relaxation in perpetuating and it should have been only in respect of each occasion in a year. It has further been submitted that the power should have been exercised in a very urgent situation and not in the manner which is beyond the purpose for which rule 65 has been framed.
(3.) THE provisions of rule 65 provides that the government may relax any provision of these rules for reasons to be recorded in writing. From the bare perusal of the provisions of this rule it is evident that the power of the government is not restricted in any manner and any provision of the rule may be relaxed. THE word 'relaxation' here could be in respect of part relaxation or full relaxation meaning thereby that there must be an existing rule and the provision of such rule of such are relaxed partly or entirely. This power can further be exercised even by providing that the provision of a particular rule shall not be applicable in a particular manner but shall be applicable in a different manner. THE word 'relax' has not been defined or restricted in the rules and, therefore, the government can relax the provision of any rule. THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no specific rule has been mentioned while exercising power under rule 65 as to which provision is sought to be relaxed. THE power exercised under Rule 65 will not be bad for this reason because any of the provision which has been provided in any rule by the government while relaxing the provision under rule 65 has to be considered and then whatever rule comes in its way the provisions of that rule/rules shall stand relaxed. In the present case the definition clause under rule 3 (xxii) has no doubt excluded the mining lease holders but when the power has been exercised under rule 65 it will be considered that even the provisions of this definition clause stand relaxed to the extent that the mining lease holders shall also be included within the purview of royalty collection contract. THE collection of royalty is prerogative of the government since the mineral is excavated from the land belonging to the government and when a mining lease is granted by the State Government, the royalty has to be collected in respect thereof. THE provisions of rule 34 provides the procedure for auction which has been found in accordance with law. Under Rule 18 (4) the lessee has to pay the dues in the office of such officer, in such manner, at such place as may be mentioned in the lease agreement or notification by the government from time to time. THE State Government is thus empowered to provide the mode of recovery. THE power to recover the royalty is the sovereign power which the State government is entitled to recover under its prerogative. This provision contemplate a procedure for payment/collection of the dues in respect of the dead - rent and royalty. Now by exercising the power of relaxation under rule 65 the contractor has to collect the royalty on behalf of the government. It has been stated that the procedure for issue of the Ravanas as it was in existence earlier shall continue as it is and blue Ravanas are issued to the lease holders who can use the same in respect of excavation and dispatch of the mineral to the extent of dead-rent fixed. If there is any excess excavation/ dispatch on which the royalty is payable the Ravanna of different colour has to be issued by the Department. THE Contractor has to verify the contents of the Ravanna including the weight so that there may not be any evasion of royalty. The provisions of rule 65 cannot be interpreted in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power relaxed should be exercised for each occasion. The provisions of rule 65 have the overriding effect on or over the provisions of all other rules and the power could be exercised by the Government in the same manner as the rule making power is exercised. As a matter of fact this power is over and above the existing rules and thus it cannot be said that it can be exercised in respect of a particular occasion. When the rules are framed no time limit could be made applicable to them. Similarly, if the Government is satisfied while relaxing any provision of the rule then the power which is said to be relaxed or exercised would be for indefinite period. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, in respect of the exercise of the power under rule 65 or for mining lease holders is not sustainable and it cannot be held that the power has wrongly been exercised. Regarding the vagueness in the exercise of power for relaxation of the rule under rule 65 we are of the opinion that is is not necessary while relaxing such power the Government should specify as to which particular provision of the rule is relaxed. If the object applicable with regard to the mineral has been specified while relaxing the rule then the provisions of the rules which comes in the way in implementing the power which is sought to be exercised while relaxing the rules will not come in the way of the Government and the object will have to be achieved by considering that the provisions of such rules which are contrary to the power sought to be exercised are eliminated or excluded or not applicable or applicable in the manner as specified by the Government while relaxing the rule. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power of relaxation would refer only with regard to the applicability or non-applicability or partial applicability of the particular rule and could not be exercised in a manner so that a different rule is substituted has also no substance. Under the provisions of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act, 1957, the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 have been framed by the State Govt. While framing such rule a further power is reserved by the State Government in the form of rule 65. Then the provisions which have been made, while relaxing the rules will not be considered as the rules but would be the provisions overriding the rules. For framing a rule the power is emanated from the Act while for exercising the power of relaxation the said power is originated from the rule itself and the power which is sought to be exercised while relaxing cannot be said to be a substitution of a new rule since the procedure for substitution of rule is different than exercise of the power under rule 65. The rules farmed under an Act are placed in the State Legislature. Though the said rules are not passed in the manner as is done for passing an Act which is the Act of the State Legislature but by placing them in the House it is considered that the legislature may suggest any amendment in the proposed rules. The rules are subordinate legislation and if a particular rule does not restrict the power to be exercised under the said rule in any manner then it would not be proper for this Court to restrict the ambit of the said rule. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there-fore, in this regard has no substance. ;