Short Note : 1. The Government by a notification dated 5.9.1970 informed the petitioner that the royalty on paving stone has been increased from Rs. 1/- to Rs. 2/- per tonne. As a result, the petitioner would be required to pay twice the agreed amount of royalty. The Government asked the petitioner to appear before the Collector to get the terms of the contract amended so that the stipulated sum of royalty be changed in accordance with the enhanced royalty. On receiving the notice, the petitioner protested contending that the rate of royalty cannot be unilaterally increased. The petitioner did not pay the increased amount of royalty. The State Government thereafter started recovery proceedings for a sum of Rs. 10,828.50. The amount was demanded on the basis of increased rate of royalty on the paving stone. The petitioner now seeks to challenge this recovery. 2. In Dharamjeet vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, Misc. Petition No. 63 of 1971, decided on 30.1.1976, a similar point arose for consideration and a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that Rule 37 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1961 which permitted increase in the rate of royalty would not be attracted when the Government had not changed the rate of royalty during the subsistence of the contract period and when the royalty rate had increased prior to execution of the contract and prior to the period of lease-deed. In other words, the power to increase the royalty was available to the Government only when the increase in the royalty was made during the period of contract and if the change in the royalty was made before or after the period of agreement, the Government could not subsequently make a demand on the basis of such an increase. In the present case, it is not disputed that the royalty was increased with effect from 17.1.1968. It was therefore, very much before the period for which the contract has been given to the petitioner. The Government could also not base his claim contending that there had been a mutual mistake overlooking the increase in the rate of royalty. In the present case, it is not disputed that the royalty was increased with effect from 17.1.1968. It was therefore, very much before the period for which the contract has been given to the petitioner. The Government could also not base his claim contending that there had been a mutual mistake overlooking the increase in the rate of royalty. We fully agree with the ratio decided in the above case and hold that the Government could not make an additional demand for royalty under Rule 37 as the increase in the rate of royalty was not changed during the subsistence of the period of contract during which the mineral was to be removed from the quarry. 3. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The additional demand (Annexure-C) made by the Government is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. M.P. No. 63 of 1971, decided on 30.1.1976 relied on. Petition allowed.