TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 61 of the said Rules. 3. The respondents entered into an `Excess Royalty Collection Contract' with the State of Rajasthan, agreeing to pay a fixed amount of ₹ 36.52 crores per annum in consideration of the State granting them a contract to collect from mining lease holders excavating and removing marble from the mines of such leaseholders, excess royalty on marble, in regard to the mining leases within the revenue boundaries of Tehsil Rajsamand, Kumbhalgarh, Amet and Railmangra of Distt. Rajsamand, during the period 19.7.2003 to 31.3.2005. The contract required the contractor to pay the annual fixed amount in instalments, that is, the first instalment on or before the signing of the agreement and the balance in eleve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instalment was due in terms of the agreement on 29.7.2003 (that is 10th day of the month commencing from 19.7.2003), the contractor who commits default cannot be charged interest if the payment was made on or before 13.8.2003 and that interest could be charged on delayed payments only from 14.8.2003. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The appellants contended that only the first ten days of the contract month were interest free, and the contractor was not entitled to any further interest free period of 15 days. 5. A reference to the relevant Rules is necessary to consider the tenability of appellant's contention. Rule 3(xiii-a) defines `Excess Royalty Collection Contract' thus: Excess Royalty Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the oral bid/tender exceeds ₹ 10 lakhs it shall be recovered in 12 monthly instalments and the first instalment shall be deposited before the execution of the agreement and the remaining amount shall be deposited in 11 equal monthly instalments by the 10th of each month in advance. Rule 37(2) provides where the bid/tender for Royalty Collection Contract/Excess Royalty Collection Contract has been accepted by the competent authority the bidder/tenderer shall execute an agreement in Form No.10 within a period of one month from the date of the order accepting the bid/tender and that the terms and conditions included in the notification issued under Rule 34 or 35 shall be treated as a part of the agreement. Form No.10 is a common for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; in Rule 61, but not `Excess Royalty Collection Contract'. Therefore, it is contended that the 15 days grace period mentioned in Rule 61, will be inapplicable to amounts due in regard to Excess Royalty Collection Contract. 7. On the other hand the respondents submit that Rules 34 (g)(iii), 35(g)(iii) and 37(2) deal with both Royalty Collection Contracts and Excess Royalty Collection Contracts together, treating them in an identical manner. Even Form No.10 is common and identical for agreements for collection of royalty and excess royalty. It is contended that Rule 61 is a general provision relating to interest in regard to all amounts due under the Rules and is therefore applicable to all contracts entered under the Rules; and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the nature of dues in regard to which it will apply. It specifically refers to dues in regard to dead rent, royalty, quarry licence fee and royalty collection contract amounts . `Excess Royalty Collection Contract Amount' is neither a dead rent, nor royalty nor quarry licence fee nor a royalty collection contract amount. `Royalty Collection Contract' was a concept that was conceived and contemplated in the Rules as originally framed. On the other hand, `Excess Royalty Collection Contract' was a new concept introduced by amendment dated 12.8.1994 by inserting a new definition under clause (xiii-a) of Rule 3. After the said amendment in 1994 introducing the concept of `Excess Royalty Collection Contract', Rules 32, 34, 35 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Extra Royalty Collection Contracts. We are not concerned with such subsequent dispute. Further a wrong or untenable subsequent claim by the government cannot justify a wrong interpretation of Rule 61. The wording of Rule 61 is clear and unambiguous. The State has categorically contended before us that Rule 61 is inapplicable, as the said rule does not refer to `Excess Royalty Collection Contracts'. If the State Government wrongly applied Rule 61 to demand higher rate of interest in regard to any subsequent period, it is open to the contractor to contend therein that Rule 61 is inapplicable to Excess Royalty Collection Contracts. 10. We, therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, restore the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
