Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a writ application by Bansilal and six others, who are quarry men in the district of Chittorgarh, under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan, the Director of Mines and Geology and one Chunilal, royalty contractor.
(2.) THE case of the applicants is briefly this. THEy say that they are quarry men in certain villages in Tehsil Chittorgarh in the district of Chittorgarh and that those quarries are 'stray deposits' but the State of Rajasthan by passing Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, (hereinafter called the 'rules') has started charging rent under rule 57 (2) of the Rules at varying rates between Rs. 12/- to 48/- per year on plots of various sizes and in particular is demanding rent at Rs. 30/- per annum from the applicants for plots measuring 25' x 50' each in their possession, in addition to royalty. THE applicants contend that the State has no right to do this and their reasons for this contention are these, (1) THE Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, are ultra vires, illegal and void inasmuch as the Government of Rajasthan had no right to make such rules. (2) No rent can be charged from the applicants as their quarries come within the exemption contained in rule 4 of the Rules. (3) As surface rent is chargeable under rule 31 (2) no further rent can be charged. (4) THEre is discrimination arising by virtue of rule 57 (2) and therefore that rule is invalid under Art. 14 of the Constitution. THE application has been opposed on behalf of the State and they have traversed all the points raised by the applicants. We shall therefore deal with these points one by one. The first question is the validity of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955. That point was considered by a Bench of this Court in Sethi Marble and Stone Industries, Chittorgarh vs. The State of Rajasthan (1) and it was held that the rules were valid It is enough to say that sec. 8 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1948 (No. LIII of 1948), gives power to the Central Government to delegate its authority under the Act, subject to such conditions, if any, to any other authority notified in the gazette. Under rule 4 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, made by the Central Government the authority to frame rules with respect to minor minerals has been delegated to the State Governments. We are therefore of opinion that the rules framed by the Rajasthan Government with respect to minerals are valid As to the second point, there is no doubt that rule 4 exempts from the application of the Rules small stray deposits for the extraction of which no permission or lease will be necessary, but which shall be subject to the payment of royalty at the rate prescribed by these rules. The exemption is in favour of what are called "small stray deposits". It is remarkable that the applicants in para 2 of their application have not stated that these are small stray deposits. They have only called them stray deposits. The State has denied that these are stray deposits. It seems that the significance of the word 'small" in rule 4 has been overlooked, by both the parties. There is nothing in the application to show that these are small stray deposits. In these circumstances, even if these are stray deposits the applicants would still be liable to pay rent under the rules. It is only when the deposits are not only stray but also small that the exemption under rule 4 arises. As to what are exactly small stray deposits will have to be considered if and when such a question arises. In this case as the applicants themselves have not alleged that these are "small stray deposits" they are not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in rule 4. The next point that is urged is that under rule 3 (2) what is called surface rent is chargeable and therefore this further rent underrule 57 cannot be charged. This is in our opinion a misunderstanding of the provisions of rule 31. Rule 31 provides for the conditions under which leases are to be granted. Sub-rule (1) lays down that lessee shall pay royalty. Sub-rule (2) provides that the lessee shall pay surface rent at such rate which will not exceed the land revenue as may be specified by the Government in each case. Sub-rule (3) lays down that the lessee shall pay dead rent. Rule 57 (2) substitutes the dead rent contained in rule 31 (3) by the rent fixed under rule 57 (2) ; otherwise the lessee would have had to pay dead rent as provided in the schedule. There is no force therefore in the argument advanced that when surface rent is charged, no further rent under rule 57 (2) is chargeable. The reason for charging further rent is obvious. Surface rent cannot exceed the land revenue and may in many cases be nominal. But even land containing minor minerals may be valuable and therefore the rules provide that in addition to the surface rent which may be nominal, a dead rent under rule 31 (3) or in its place rent under rule 57 (2) will also be charged. There is therefore no force in this contention. The last point that is urged is with respect to the discrimination which was said to be contained in rule 57 (2) itself. We have not been able to understand what is this discrimination and how this discrimination arises. Rule 57 (2) provides that in minor mineral areas the Director shall delineate the are in small regular plots and let them out annually fixing a quarry rent between Rs. 12/- and 48/- per annum. It is true that this is different from the dead rent provided in Schd. II of the Rules. It may be that what are called minor minerals in Rule 57 (2) may be rich in deposits and therefore rent higher that what would be charged under rule 31 (3) is provided. But rule 57 (2) makes no difference between one quarry man and another quarry man in that area and it can hardly be said under the circumstances that there is any discrimination in the rule. It is also urged that the Director has been vested with uncontrolled power to fix rent for such areas. It is enough to say that the Director is an expert and a responsible officer who should know his job; • further it is not that the matter is entirely with the Director because the rule provided that he will fix the rent between Rs. 12/- and Rs. 48/- according to the size of the small regular plots. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the applicants to show that the Director is not properly following the provisions of the rule or has in any way abused them. In the circumstances we are not prepared to hold that rule 57 (2) as it stands is hit by Art. 14. There is therefore no force in this application and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the State. .;