ORDER Dixit, C.J. l. The petitioner in this case who is the holder of a quarry lease for limestone over certain lands situated in Murwara tahsil of Jabalpur district challenges the legality of assessment of royalty made against him for the period from 17th July 1965 to 31st December 1965. 2. The material facts are that by clause 3 of the lease concluded between the petitioner and the State it is provided that the petitioner-lessee shall pay to the State-lessor on the 15th day of March and 15th September in each year royalty at the rate of ten percent of the value at the pit's mouth subject to a minimum of 0.50 paise per ton of limestone, 0.75 Paise per ton of slackedlime and Re. 1/- per ton of unslacked lime raised from or out of the said lands during the period preceding the said date respectively for which the royalty is payable. Under clause 5 of the lease the lessee is required to keep during the currency of the demise correct and intelligible books of accounts showing accurately the quantity of the minerals extracted and the weight and value of the said minerals sold or exported together with the names of the purchasers or consignees and he is required to furnish to the Collector, Jabalpur, not later than the 10th of every year a correct statement of the quantity of the minerals extracted, sold, exported or otherwise disposed of during the preceding three months. Clause 21 of the lease deed runs as follows:- "Whenever any doubt, difference or dispute shall hereafter arise touching the construction of these presents or anything herein contained or any matter or things connected with the said lands or the working or non-working thereof or the amount of payment of any rent or royalty reserved or made payable hereunder the matter in difference shall be referred to State Government for arbitration and its decision thereon shall be final and binding on parties". 3. On 8th November 1966 the Mining Officer, Jabalpur, issued a memorandum to the applicant stating that the royalty for the period from 17th July 1965 to 31st December 1965 had been provisionally determined at Rs. 8,703.75 and asking the applicant to state his objections to the proposed assessment. 3. On 8th November 1966 the Mining Officer, Jabalpur, issued a memorandum to the applicant stating that the royalty for the period from 17th July 1965 to 31st December 1965 had been provisionally determined at Rs. 8,703.75 and asking the applicant to state his objections to the proposed assessment. The petitioner has annexed with the petition a copy of the written objections which he says he had preferred before the Collector against the assessment. Therein he has stated that the basis of assessment of royalty at Rs. 14.50 per ton had no co-relation with the books of accounts maintained by him; that the proposed assessment of royalty should not have been on the basis of prevailing market price which had no bearing whatever for the ascertainment of sale-value at pit's mouth and that in determining the sale value of the mineral at pit's mouth, loading and transpiration charges and charges on account of income-tax, sales-tax and establishment should have been excluded. In the return filed on behalf of the opponents it is denied that the petitioner ever lodged any objections to the provisional assessment. The further statement of the applicant is that after filing his objections he did not receive any reply either from the Minining Officer or from the Collector. 4. On 28th November 1906 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector requesting him to refer the dispute with regard to assessment of royalty to the State Government for arbitration in terms of clause 21 of the lease-deed. This was done. On 18th July 1967 the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh in Natural Resources Department by an order in the name of the Governor informed the petitioner that the reference made by him under clause 21 had been rejected. In his letter the Secretary said inter alia: "The learned counsel for the lessee was heard. His main contention is that the basis for determining the pit's mouth value as adopted by the Collector was not correct and that transport charges have not been allowed. According to clause 3 of the lease agreement, the royalty due to the State Government is 10% of the sale value at pit's mouth subject to a minimum of 50 paise per ton for limestone, 75 paise per ton for slacked lime and Re. 1 per ton for un-slacked lime. According to clause 3 of the lease agreement, the royalty due to the State Government is 10% of the sale value at pit's mouth subject to a minimum of 50 paise per ton for limestone, 75 paise per ton for slacked lime and Re. 1 per ton for un-slacked lime. Pit's mouth value has not been defined in any Act, Rules or Agreement. There is no authoritative decision by any competent Court defining this expression, which may serve as a guide in this connection. For interpreting this expression, it would therefore, be necessary to go by the common usage, which has been accepted by a large number of lessees over a number of years. The usage is of course based on common sense. The adoption of a practice different from the one which has been accepted by a large number of lessees in the past and on the basis of which they have been making payments, would not only create difficulties, but also be unfair to all those who have had no reason to feel dissatisfied with the acceptance of the prevalent practice. In the interest of fairness to all these lessees, it will not be desirable to accept the contention of the applicant in this case that a different basis may be adopted for the determination of pit’s mouth value in this case. So far the current practice has been to make a distinction between the sale price and sale value for the purpose of the determination of the pit's mouth value. Sale price may vary from case to case, but the sale value of the mineral will be the value generally obtaining for a particular grade of mineral in a particular area at a particular time. The fact that the applicant claims to have received as his price less than the sale value of the mineral at that time is no reason why he should pay less than what so many other lessees have paid during the same period for a similar mineral in the same area on the basis of the sale value of the mineral. It is after taking all these factors into consideration that the Collector has fixed the sale value of the minerals for the period under reference. The Collector has allowed loading charges at the scheduled rate of 50 p. per ton. It is after taking all these factors into consideration that the Collector has fixed the sale value of the minerals for the period under reference. The Collector has allowed loading charges at the scheduled rate of 50 p. per ton. The applicant has not claimed any transport charges before the Collector nor has he been able to substantiate his claim for the same even in the reference. When he made no claim for transport charges there was no question of allowing him any reduction on that account for arriving at pit's mouth value. The reference is, therefore, rejected." 5. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the above decision of the State Government under clause 21 of the lease-deed. In the petition an objection has been raised as regards the, jurisdiction of the Secretary to Government in Natural Resources Department to adjudicate upon the dispute. But in view of the averments made in paragraph 9 of the return filed on behalf of the respondents, this objection was not pressed before us by Shri Dabir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He, however, argued that under clause 3 of the lease deed royalty was payable at a certain rate on the basis of the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth; that the value of limestone at pit's mouth meant only the cost of raising of the mineral at pit's mouth and nothing more; that the State Government was not justified in calculating royalty on the basis of the sale value of the mineral; and that for determining the sale value at pit's mouth, not only the loading and transportation charges but also the charges on account of income• tax, sales-tax and establishment should be deducted. 6. In our judgment, there is no force in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the value at pit's mouth of the mineral only meant the cost of raising the mineral to the pit's mouth. There is no elucidation in the lease• deed as to how the value of the limestone at the pit's mouth is to be computed. Clause 3 of the lease-deed says that royalty is payable at a certain percentage of the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth. The words "royalty" and "value" give a clue as to how the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth is to be calculated. Clause 3 of the lease-deed says that royalty is payable at a certain percentage of the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth. The words "royalty" and "value" give a clue as to how the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth is to be calculated. .It is well settled that royalty represents the lessor's share of the profits made from the mining business. If royalty is a share of the profits of the business, then clearly the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth cannot mean merely the cost of raising the mineral to the surface. The 'value' spoken of in clause 3 of the lease deed plainly means the price that would probably be paid for the mineral after fair negotiations between the petitioner and the buyer, it is thus its market-value which may be more or less than the cost of its production. It is noteworthy that clause 3 uses the word 'value' and not the selling price of the mineral. Therefore, the price at which the petitioner actually sold the mineral is not very material. The price at which the petitioner sold the mineral may be higher or lower than its market value. What is to be taken into account in the computation of royalty is the market value of the mineral. No doubt, if the mineral is sold at a place other than the pit's mouth, a deduction on account of loading and transportation charges of the mineral to the place where it is sold has to be made from the market-value of the mineral for arriving at the value at the pit's mouth. But it is difficult to see how charges on account of sales-tax, income-tax and establishment and godown charges are an allowable deduction. Sales-tax or income-tax is not an expense incidental to conveyance and delivery of the mineral to the buyer at the place where it is actually sold and delivered. The godown and establishment charges are necessarily taken into account in the fixation of the market-value of the Mineral. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue with reference to the form of contract that is generally concluded between the Public Works Department and a contractor that according to that form all quarry fees, royalties, octroi duties and ground-rent for stacking materials are to be borne by the contractor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue with reference to the form of contract that is generally concluded between the Public Works Department and a contractor that according to that form all quarry fees, royalties, octroi duties and ground-rent for stacking materials are to be borne by the contractor. It was said that this indicated that charges on account of all these items should be deducted in determining the pit's mouth value. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the pit's mouth value does not mean merely the cost of raising the mineral to the surface. Secondly, if a lessor is required to pay any quarry charges, octroi tax, ground-rent etc, then that would necessarily enter in the determination of the Market-value of the mineral. 8. In this view of the matter, the computation of royalty made by the Government on the basis of the sale value of the mineral cannot be objected to. In that computation, deduction on account of loading charges was allowed. The petitioner cannot be allowed to urge here that in the computation of the value of the mineral at the pit's "mouth, transportation charges were not deducted when he made no effort whatsoever for substantiating his claim for deduction before the Government. It is true that the Secretary to Government in the Natural Resources Department in the award he made observed that the petitioner had not claimed any transport charges before the Collector; but then he also added that the applicant was not able "to substantiate his claim for the same even in the reference". When the petitioner made no claim for deduction on account of transport charges, there was no question of allowing any deduction on that account for arriving at the pit's mouth value. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the claim for deduction on account of transport charges was arbitrarily refused. 9. It was also submitted that the Secretary in the Natural Resources Department who conducted the arbitration proceedings did not for himself decide the dispute and that he merely affirmed the provisional assessment made by the Collector. There is no substance in this contention. The language used by the Secretary in the impugned decision may not be apt or appropriate in an award pronounced on arbitration. The Secretary was also unskillful in the use of the expression "the reference is, therefore, rejected". There is no substance in this contention. The language used by the Secretary in the impugned decision may not be apt or appropriate in an award pronounced on arbitration. The Secretary was also unskillful in the use of the expression "the reference is, therefore, rejected". But there can be no doubt from the substance of the decision that when the Secretary rejected the contention of the petitioner and also the reference, he in effect adopted the provisional assessment of royalty made by the Collector and made it his own decision in the arbitration proceedings. It may be added that before the Secretary the petitioner did not challenge the market value of the mineral determined after making a deduction for the loading charges. In fact, as stated in the return, the applicant never submitted to the Collector the monthly returns which he was required to under clause 5 of the lease-deed. He concentrated his attention only on deductions on account of sales-tax and income-tax. These were in our opinion, rightly not allowed. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. The respondents shall have costs of this application. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 150. The outstanding amount of the security deposit after deduction of cost shall be refunded to the petitioner.