R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has, by these two petitions challenged the validity of the gujarat Minor Mineral (Amendment) Rules, 1992, where by Rule 21 has been substituted and enhanced rate of royalty and rates of dead rent have been prescribed. The petitioner in holding two leases, one for minor mineral sandstone and another for minor mineral of quartzitc. The rate of royalty lor sandstone was Rs. 7/- per tonne and has been enhanced to Rs. 12/- per tonne and by Schedule II rates of dead rents have been introduced and rate of dead rent for sandstone and quari/. iic is Rs. 8000/- per hectare in respect of quarry leases. ( 2 ) IT is submitted that this enhancement of rate of royalty and rate of dead rent arc unreasonable, irrational and unconstitutional. As far as the rates arc concerned, it is legislative act. ( 3 ) IN the case of D. K. Trivedi and Sons vs. State of Gujarat, reported in A. I. R. 1986, sc, page 1323, the Supreme Court has dealt with earlier Rule 21 when rates of royalty were enhanced and the Supreme Court held that the State Government is entitled to amend the rules enhancing the rates of royalty and dead rent, even as regards lease subsisting at the date of such amendment. The Supreme Court has further observed that"it may be that in certain cases by enhancing the rate of dead rent the holders of leases in respect of certain types of minor minerals may be adversely affected but private interest cannot be permitted to override public interest. Conservation of minerals and their proper exploitation result in securing the maximum benefit to the community and it is open to the state Government to enhance the rate of dead rent so as to ensure the proper conservation and development of minor minerals eventhough it may affect a lessees liability under a subsisting lease. " ( 4 ) AS far as the enhancement of rates of royally is concerned, it is in the nature of tax and that too, an indirect one and the burden of such tax is passed on to the consumers. In such matters, the rate for taxes is a purely legislative policy decision and the Court cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the legislature. Ultimately, the licensee is not required to bear the burden of royalty. In such matters, the rate for taxes is a purely legislative policy decision and the Court cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the legislature. Ultimately, the licensee is not required to bear the burden of royalty. It is well known that in matters of taxes such as excise and customs, at times in some cases, the rales of duty exceed the value of the commodity of the article taxed a`nd some times number of times. There may be a number of factors weighing with the Legislature while Fixing such rates. In such question of rates and taxes, detailed examination of its rationality or reasonableness is out of question in judicial review by the Court. Therefore, this challenge on the question of enhancement of rales of royalty is totally misconceived and is rejected. ( 5 ) AS regards dead rent, it is submitted that this is payable irrespective of excavation of minerals and therefore, there will not be any question of passing of the burden such dead rent and the licensee will have to pay the same irrespective of non- excavation or less excavation. The concept of dead rent is well known and is a fixed rate and it is payable whether lessee makes use, full use or not, he has to pay that rent. Similarly, even if the mine is not worked or is not sufficiently worked, the minimum dead rent has to be paid. In the present case, dead rent is linked with hectaragge of the lease. Rs. 8000/- per year is the minimum dead rent per hectare. If a licensee were to produce or excavate merely two tonnes (1/3rd of one truck load) per hectare per day, the royalty accrued thereon will exceed dead rent and they will not be required to pay any dead rent. If however licensee chooses or is unable to economically work the mine or if he chooses to have excessive lease, he may have to pay the dead rent. But it cannot be said that the fixation of the deadrent for all such leases is unreasonable merely because a licensee is not working his mine economically and upto the optimum level. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has submitted that total production from this mine of 15 hectares is only about 3000 tonnes per year, i. e. only 200 tonnes per hectare. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has submitted that total production from this mine of 15 hectares is only about 3000 tonnes per year, i. e. only 200 tonnes per hectare. It is not the case of the petitioner that this is the optimum and maximum mining possible. Even if that was the case, it could not have helped the petitioner because in a given lease, it may be so, but having regard to the fact that rules are made for all kinds of quaries and leases in respect of specified minerals the legislative policy is intended for everyone. Thus, the dead rent is fixed having regard to the rate of royalty and linked the hectarage of the lease. No infirmity is shown. Thus the rule is legal and valid. No other point has been raised. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. Notice discharged in each petition. .