Judgment The petitioner has claimed that he was the owner of the plots of land described in paragraph 2 of the petition and that he was manufacturing bricks by using ordinary earth dug from the said plots of land. He has challenged the authority of the respondents to demand payment of royalty and damages for extraction of brick earth from the said lands for the year 1974 on the grounds mentioned hereinafter. 2. At the outset I may record that Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioner, has not disputed that the earth excavated by the petitioner was a minor mineral within the meaning of clause (e) of section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation And Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner has not also disputed that he had been extracting and removing from the plots in question earth for manufacturing bricks intended for sale. Mr. Mitra has submitted that the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Chinsurah, respondent No. 3, had no authority to impose royalty or fee for damages upon the petitioner. He has secondly submitted that the assessment of damages by the Additional District Magistrate while hearing a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the assessment of royalty was illegal. Mr. Mitra has also submitted that the instant case was covered by Rule 31 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 and the petitioner was not liable to pay any royalty for bricks manufactured with the earth excavated from the lands allegedly owned by himself. Mr. Mitra has also submitted that Rules 24 and 25 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 were ultra vires section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation And Development) Act, 1957. Therefore, the State Government or its officers had no authority to grant quarry permits or to demand royalty as a consideration for granting such permits. 3. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the case. They have also produced the original records relating to the imposition of royalty and the fee for damages upon the petitioner for excavating earth for manufacture of bricks in the year 1974. The petitioner has not also disputed that he had applied in Form 'G' annexed to the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 for the grant of a quarry permit for excavating brick earth from the aforesaid lands on 25th February, 1975. The petitioner has not also disputed that he had applied in Form 'G' annexed to the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 for the grant of a quarry permit for excavating brick earth from the aforesaid lands on 25th February, 1975. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 empowers the district authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government to grant a5 per procedure laid down in Schedule 3 quarry permits in From 'F' to any person to extract or remove from any specified land within the limits of his jurisdiction any mineral on pre-payment of royalty. Rule 25 of the said Rules provides that an application for a quarry permit is to be submitted to the District Authority or any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government in Form 'G'. The expression "district authority" has been defined in Rule 3(b) of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 as meaning the Additional District Magistrate and the other officers, specified therein. Schedule 3 to the said Rules of 1973 contains the detailed procedure for the issue of the quarry permits. In the instant case the royalty exceeded Rs.200/-. Therefore, neither the Junior Land Reforms Officer nor the Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer under Rule 2 of Schedule 3 was empowered to issue the quarry permits. The Additional District Magistrate as the district authority under Rule 3 was vested with the power to issue the quarry permits and to impose royalty. Rule 5 of the Schedule 3 expressly provides that the issuing authority shall arrange for occasional inspection and check up of the amount of the mineral removed. The district authority under Rule 9 of Schedule 3 has been enjoined to adopt any procedure or delegate much of his powers to such officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of better administration, revenue collection and less loss due to unauthorised workings subject to future directions of the Government. In view of the express provisions contained in Schedule 3 of the Rules of 1973, I reject the extreme contention of Mr. Mitra that the Junior Land Reforms Officer was not authorised at all to issue the quarry permit; under the said Rules. Presumbly, the attention of the learned Judges who disposed of the unreported case placed before me (1) (C.R. nos. Mitra that the Junior Land Reforms Officer was not authorised at all to issue the quarry permit; under the said Rules. Presumbly, the attention of the learned Judges who disposed of the unreported case placed before me (1) (C.R. nos. 2037-38 (W) of 1978 disposed of by Amiya Kumar Moohrji, J. on 12th April, 1978 and C.R. No. 4928 (W) of 1972, disposed of by Debiprasad Pal, J. on the 7th September, 1973) had no occasion to consider Schedule 3 which, as I have pointed out, prescribes that the district authority may authorise the Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer and the Junior Lund Reforms Officer or the equivalent officers to issue quarry permits subject to pecuniary limits specified in Rule 3 of Schedule 3 of the Rules of 1973. Further, in the instant case, the royalty was for n sum exceeding Rs.200/-. Therefore, in the instant case the Addl. District Magistrate was the competent authority. 4. The records placed before me amply prove that not only the petitioner's application in Form 'G' was addressed to the Additional District Magistrate/Sub-divisional Land Reforms Officer/Junior Land Reforms Officer, but also under orders of the Additional District Magistrate, L.R., Hooghly, the Junior Land Reforms Officer had made enquiries about the extraction of brick earth from plot Nos. 767 and 768, Mouza Alikhoza, P.S. Magra. In the instant case the Junior Land Reforms Officer did not act as the: issuing authority but he had acted under the directions of the Additional District Magistrate who was the district authority to check up the amount of the minerals allegedly removed by the petitioner. The said direction by the district authority was not in conflict with any instruction or direction of the Government. Therefore, I find no error of jurisdiction on the part of the Additional District Magistrate as the district authority in adopting the said procedure for verifying and checking the particulars given in the petitioner's application in Form 'H' for the grant of a quarry permit for extracting brick earth. After further enquiry the matter had been placed before the Addl. Dist. Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate by his Memo No. 3322 L.R. dated 7th July, 1975 addressed to the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Chinsurah referred to his report and his recommendation for the issue of a permit in favour of the petitioner on payment of advance royalty and on deposit of security money. Dist. Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate by his Memo No. 3322 L.R. dated 7th July, 1975 addressed to the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Sadar, Chinsurah referred to his report and his recommendation for the issue of a permit in favour of the petitioner on payment of advance royalty and on deposit of security money. The Junior' Land Reforms Officer had suggested the realisation of a further amount of Rs.1983.87 p. as arrear royalty for extraction of 40200 cubic ft. of brick earth in the year 1974. The Additional District Magistrate, L.R., Hooghly, by the said Memo directed the J.L.R.O. to arrange for realisation of the said amount from the petitioner as It brick• field owner and to lend a report of compliance. Thus, the records amply establish that after the J.L.R.O. had submitted his report the Addl. Dist. Magistrate as the district authority has imposed the said royalty upon the petitioner. The said order was not vitiated by reason of the check up and of the enquiry by the J.L.R.O. The said procedure was also not in conflict with the order No. MII 159 (15)/58 dt. 4.12.59, issued by the Government of India, Department of Mines and Fuel, Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel and made in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) section 24 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations And Development) Act. 1957. The laid Government of India order dated 4.12.59 had authorised the officers specified therein to enter and inspect any mine within their respective territory in such State and Union territory for the purposes specified in the said order. Section 24 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation And Development) Act, 1957 makes provision for authorisation by the Central Government for entry and inspection and other acts specified therein for the purpose of ascertaining the position of the working, actual or prospective, of any mine or abandoned mine or for any other purpose connected with this Act or tile Rules made thereunder. Section 24 of the Act is neither a charging provision nor does it specify the authority who will be entitled to impose rent or royalty in respect of minor minerals. Section 24 of the Act is neither a charging provision nor does it specify the authority who will be entitled to impose rent or royalty in respect of minor minerals. Therefore, the Additional District Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Rule 24 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 by adopting the procedure prescribed by Schedule 3 to the said Rules did not act contrary to section 24 of the Act or to the orders made thereunder. I hold that the Addl. Dist. Magistrate had acted within his powers by arranging for inspection and check up through the JLRO the amount of the mineral allegedly removed by the petitioner. 5. At this stage I may also reject another submission made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the scope of section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation And Development) Act. Mr. Mitra tried to contend that section 14 of the Act was previously amended by the Central Act 56 of 1972. Under the said amended provision, the provisions of sections 4 to 13 (inclusive) were not applicable to the quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions. By the said Amending Act section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act was amended. Under sub-section (1) of section 15 the State Government was authorised to make Rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mining concessions in respect of minor minerals and all purposes connected therewith. Mr. Mitra has also placed before me the repealing and amending Act, 1978 (Act 38 of 1978) which along with several other acts had repealed Act 56 of 1972 subject to the savings contained in section 4 of the Act 38 of 1978. Therefore, Mr. Mitra himself admitted that the said amending Act of 1978 was not relevant for disposal of this Rule. 6. I decline to accept the contention that the State Government by making a Rule under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act may regulate the grant of quarry leases, mining leases but was incapable of making any provision for the grant of quarry permits. In my view, the expression 'every mineral concessions' is wide enough to include the grant of the quarry permit and for recovery of royalty for the same. In my view, the expression 'every mineral concessions' is wide enough to include the grant of the quarry permit and for recovery of royalty for the same. One of the meanings of the expression 'concessions' is the grant and in the context in which the words 'mineral concession' have been used the legislature clearly contemplated every kind of arrangement or permission by the State for removing or excavating minor minerals. There is no reason to limit or circumscribe the wide amplitude of the expression "other mineral concessions" and exclude quarry permits therefrom. Therefore, I conclude that the State Government was authorised to provide in the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules for the issue of quarry permits (vide Ch. 3 of the Rules). The Rules 24 and 25 were not ultra vires as contended by the petitioner. 7. There is also no substance in the submission of the petitioner that the quarry permit cannot be granted in respect of brick earth. According to Mr. Mitra, the expression 'quarry' suggests excavation of "stone or lime stone". Again when it is an accepted position that brick earth is a minor mineral and the petitioner has been excavating the lame for manufacture of bricks, I am bound to hold that he was undertaking a minor operation. According to the common parlance, 'quarry' means, inter alia, "upon excavation of building, atone, state or other rock". Therefore, when the petitioner admittedly had undergone operations for digging and excavating and for removing brick earth, he had clearly opened a quarry. In the absence of any limitation in the aforesaid Act and the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 to the contrary, I am not prepared to read in the statute a limitation to the effect that the quarry permits would be limited to excavation of stones and lime stones only. 8. Mr. Mitra has lastly submitted that the petitioner under Rule 31 was entitled to extract minerals from the lands owned by him without payment of any royalty. Rule 31, inter-alia, provides that no lease shall be required to be taken by a person, who extracts any minor mineral from his own land for the following uses, viz., (a) clay modelling etc., (b) for use in any other industries specified in a notification issued by the State Government, (c) for his personal use for any other purpose. Rule 31, inter-alia, provides that no lease shall be required to be taken by a person, who extracts any minor mineral from his own land for the following uses, viz., (a) clay modelling etc., (b) for use in any other industries specified in a notification issued by the State Government, (c) for his personal use for any other purpose. It is admitted that brick manufacturing industry has not been specified by any notification issued under Rule 31. The petitioner was not also carrying on any cottage industry. The petitioner had admittedly excavated earth for the manufacture of bricks which were to be sold. Further, these provisions of Rule 31 have been subject to the following proviso. In other words, the main part of Rule 31 has been qualified in two ways. In the first place, the Rule 31 itself imposes certain limitations one of which is that the mineral so extracted shall not be disposed of by sale or otherwise without prior permission in writing of the Dist. Magistrate or the Addl. Dist. Magistrate (Estates Acqu.) etc. and except on payment of fees at the rate of 40 paise per cubic metre, or at such reduced rate as may be fixed. Another limitation in Rule 31 is that the mineral so extracted shall not be converted into bricks or tiles except where such bricks and tiles are required for his own use. There was no conflict or contradiction between the said conditions and the exception in Rule 31 regarding taking out of lease for working minor minerals in the manner specified thereunder. The said exceptions should be read subject to the qualifications and conditions which are in the nature of limitations. Therefore, Rule 31 does not assist the case of the present petitioner. The decision of K.C. Sen, J., in (2) Joynal Abedin Gayen & Anr. v. The State, reported in 71 CWN 227, was rendered upon consideration of Rules 25 and 26 of the West Bengal Mines and Minerals Rules, 1959. The said Rules 25 and 26 are not pari materia with Rule 31 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973. Therefore, I am not required to consider at length the effect of the said decision of K.C. Sen, J. in Joynal Abedin Gayen's case (supra). 9. Mr. The said Rules 25 and 26 are not pari materia with Rule 31 of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973. Therefore, I am not required to consider at length the effect of the said decision of K.C. Sen, J. in Joynal Abedin Gayen's case (supra). 9. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioner, at one stage in his submission tried to contend that the assessment of the total cubic feet of brick earth removed by the petitioner was arbitrary and without any basis. But, I find that the petitioner has not really challenged at the final hearing the computation of the royalty payable by him presumably because the same would be a mere question of fact than of law. Sitting in writ jurisdiction, I am not prepared to hold an investigation as to the actual cubic feet of brick earth removed by the petitioner and the royalty payable by him. There is another additional reason why I decline to consider the said point. After the Junior Land Reforms Officer had communicated to the petitioner the order of the Additional District Magistrate regarding payment of the royalty for extraction of brick earth, the petitioner had filed a revisional application before the Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly. After hearing the petitioner regarding his said prayer for registration, the Additional District Magistrate had issued a Memo No. 6777 LR dated Chinsurah, 18.12.75, stating that he should deposit the amount of royalty, as already assessed and also deposit Rs.250/- instead of Rs.500/- as damage fee for unauthorised extraction of brick earth for commercial purpose. Therefore, when the petitioner's representation was considered and a revised order was made, I cannot function as an appellate authority and enter into the question regarding the actual quantity of brick earth removed by the petitioner from the said two plots in the relevant year. 10. There is, however, one infirmity in the order conveyed by the memo dated the 8th December, 1975 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, LR, Hooghly. The Addl. Dist. Magistrate by his previous order dated the 7th July, 1975 as conveyed by the JLRO by his Memo dated the 10th July, 1975 had demanded the deposit of Rs.1983.87 as royalty but did not impose any fee for damage for the unauthorised extraction. Therefore, when the petitioner applied for reconsideration of the said order for depositing royalty, without hearing the petitioner the Addl. Therefore, when the petitioner applied for reconsideration of the said order for depositing royalty, without hearing the petitioner the Addl. District Magistrate, L.R. Hooghly could not lawfully impose face for damages. This would be undoubtedly without prejudice to the right of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in respect of any other liability, if any, incurred by the petitioner on account of extraction of brick earth from the two plots in question. 11. Mr. Mitra also wanted to urge before me that imposition of uniform rate of royalty on all kinds of minerals according to Schedule I of the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 was discriminatory. The said point regarding Article 14 of the Constitution was not pleaded in the writ petition, and, therefore, ultimately on the prayer of Mr. Mitra, I do not decide the said point and the said point of discrimination, if any, is left open. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I discharge this Rule in part so far as the demand of royalty mentioned in the petition is concerned in respect of extraction of brick earth by the petitioner. I make this Rule absolute in part. So far as the demand for fee for damages for extraction of brick earth as conveyed by the Memo dated 18th December, 1975 by the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, LR Hooghly, Annexure 'D' to the petition liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 13. The State respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount of security towards protanto satisfaction or the outstanding royalty payable by the petitioner. The respondents would be at liberty to take recourse to other proceedings for recovery of the balance amount, if any, of the said royally. There will be no order as to costs.