JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this writ petition was granted a mining licence for masonry stone, under Order (Annx 1) dated 7th January, 1982, in respect of an area measuring 35.46 hectors at Hathibbata hill in village Sarsop, tehsil Sawai Madhopur The dead rent payable under the said order was Rs. 35,092/-and the royalty was payable at the rate of Rs. 11/- per tonne. The said order dated 7th January, 1982, was modified by order (Annx. 2) dated 2nd July, 1986, whereby the area in respect of the mining lease was reduced from 35.46 hectors to 5.52 hectors, and the dead rent was altered from Rs. 35,092/- to Rs. 17,280/-. By the said order a condition was also imposed that if the party uses the mineral for the purpose of making chips then he would be liable to pay royalty at the rate of Rs. 8/per tonne. Thereafter a mining lease was executed in respect of 5.52 hectors, on 21st August, 1986 and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Sawai Madhopur on 22nd August, 1986. By order (Annx. 4) dated 20th February, 1987, issued by the State Government, the order (Annx. 1) dated 7th January 1982, was amended and instead of 'cheja' stone the word "marble" was sought to be substituted. The dead rent was altered from Rs. 17,280/-to Rs. 27,600/-on the basis of Rs. 5/-per tonne per sq. meter and the royalty was changed from Rs. 1.50 to Rs. 8/- per tonne. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20th February, 1987 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and in response to the same a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. We have heard Shri Vimal Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri K.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Shri Chaudhary has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Ganpat Ram Saini vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 735/1986 and 1477/1986, decided on 10th November, 1987) . In the said decision, a similar question was involved with regard to raising of the royalty from Rs. 1/- to Rs. 4. Shri Chaudhary has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Ganpat Ram Saini vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 735/1986 and 1477/1986, decided on 10th November, 1987) . In the said decision, a similar question was involved with regard to raising of the royalty from Rs. 1/- to Rs. 8/- per tonne on the view that the mineral which was being taken out by the petitioner in that area from the quarries at Bhemiyojiki Doongari was for the purpose of making chips. This Court appointed Dr. M.L. Sethi, former Director, Mines & Geology of the Government of Rajasthan as a Commissioner to find out the nature of mineral which was being excavated by the petitioner in this case. The Commissioner in his report expressed the view that the rock excavated by the petitioner in that case is masonry stone and geologically it is 'quartzite', and that it cannot fall in the category of marble, limestone, dolomite, dolimitic marble etc. because it is net calcareous and is not used for polishing in the building trade and that it is a hard rock. In view the said report of the Commissioner, the writ petition was allowed and, it was held that the petitioner in that case is liable to pay royalty at the rate of Re. 1/- per tonne and not @ Rs. 8/-per tonne on the mineral excavated. 5. Shri Chaudhary has placed on record as Annexure 5 the said report of the Commissioner Shri M.L. Sethi. In the said report, Dr. Sethi has observed as under: "The hill formations near Sarsop prominently display quartzite rock and can be seen from long distance. The quarries, in question, namely Bhomiya ki Doongri, Hathi Bhaia. Naka Doongri near village Sarsop, are all located in the quartzite formations and should be classified as masonry stone." 6. Shri Chaudhary has pointed out that in that case Dr. Sethi was required to submitted his report in respect of the mineral excavated in Bbomiya-ki-Doongri, but Dr. Sethi, in his report, has also expressed the opinion that the quarries at Hathi Bhata are also located in the quartzite formations and the mineral excavated there should be classified as masonry stone. In view of the aforesaid report of Dr. Sethi was required to submitted his report in respect of the mineral excavated in Bbomiya-ki-Doongri, but Dr. Sethi, in his report, has also expressed the opinion that the quarries at Hathi Bhata are also located in the quartzite formations and the mineral excavated there should be classified as masonry stone. In view of the aforesaid report of Dr. Sethi, we are of the opinion that the respondent are not justified in classifying the mineral which is excavated by the petitioner as marble to be used for making chips and it must be held to be masonry stone in respect of which the mining lease has been granted to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 20th Feb. 1987 (Annx. 4) is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner would be liable to pay royalty and dead rent at the rate prescribed in accordance with law for masonry stone on the mineral excavated by him under the mining lease dated 21st August, 1987. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******