S.Ravindra Bhat,j. - (1.) The State's grievance articulated in these appeals is that the learned Single Judge cited Rule 44(16) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. It is submitted that on conjoint reading of that provision with Rule 23 of the said Rules, the question of variation in excess royalty collection, would arise in the event of enhancement of dead rent. In the present case by operation of Rules, the rate of dead rent had reduced. Nevertheless, the State sought to revise upward, excess royalty collection rate. Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Court in writ proceedings.
(2.) The learned Single Judge noticed that when the rate of dead rent is reduced or increased, the revision of dead rent occurs. He also observed that such change would not affect static dead rent in the light of the conditions in the agreement and that collection of excess royalty had to be made at the rate of dead rent prevailing at the time of contract. The operative portion of the Single Judge's order is as follows:- "When rate of dead rent is reduced or increased, it amount to revision of dead rent. In any case, it is not going to affect with static dead rent in the light of clause of the agreement. The calculation of excess royalty has to be made at the rate of dead rent existing at the time of contract. If rate of dead rent at the time of execution of contract is taken, obviously the figure of excess royalty calculation would be after taking note of prevalent rate of the dead rent and not on the reduced rate because Rule 44(16) makes it clear that revision of dead rent would not be affected on the contract. The petitioners cannot seek benefit of excess royalty collection on the reduced rate of dead rent. The respondents were expected to pass order taking into consideration the clauses of contract and Rule 44(16) of the Rules of 2017. Instead of doing it in the manner explained above, the respondents passed impugned order on 20th June, 2017 to modify the terms of the contract which was not required in view of observation made above. The only order could have been that irrespective of reduction of rate of dead rent, the calculation for excess royalty collection would be on the prevalent rate of dead rent when contract was executed. The outcome would have been nothing but same for the purpose of calculation causing no loss to the Government. It is apart from saving the petitioners in case the rate of dead rent is increased. Accordingly, to have balance, Rule 44(16) so as clause 3(xvi) of the Rules of 2017 is to be given effect in strict terms. Hence, the issue raised by the parties has been decided in consonance to the terms of agreement and the Rules of 2017. The outcome of which would be nothing but as follows: (i) For the purpose of calculation of excess royalty collection amount, the determination would be after taking into consideration the rate of dead rent prevalent at the time of execution of contract and not on the reduced rate because as per Rule 44(16), revision of dead rent cannot be applied on the contract. (ii) The direction given in Para (i) would given sanctity of clause 3(xvi) of the agreement as well Section 44(16) of the Rules of 2017. The Government made calculation by taking difference of amount on the reduced rate of dead rent, whereas, increase and reduction of dead rent should not have been taken into consideration for determination of amount of royalty. (iii) The State Government can issue demand as per the directions given above. If same amount comes by applying the method given by this court, they would be at liberty to maintain the demand. (iv) It is, however, clarified that in case of increase of rate of dead rent, it would not be to the loss of the petitioners. In that case also, same formula would be applied for determination of amount of excess royalty collection, as given in the present cases where rate of the dead rent has been reduced."
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, it appears to this Court that the change contemplated by Rule 44(16) and Rule 23 is one of enhancement of dead rent. Since, in the present cases, concededly the dead rent was not enhanced but rather revised downwards, the only possibility that could have enabled the State to increase the rate of excess royalty collection, would have been a neutral condition setting out a formula or a power reserved to itself to do so. No such contingency was contemplated by the State when it entered into the contracts with the respondents, who were awarded the contracts. The contract was awarded pursuant to bids offered by the respondents.;