Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner herein is a partnership firm. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of his petition has averred that he applied for grant of a lease for quarrying black granite in an extent of 4.97 hectares in Kumbaikadu, Palamadai Extension Reserve Forest, Bangur Range, Coimbatore North Forest Division, for a period of five years from 10-1-1975 to 10-1-1980. The lease was duly granted. A lease deed was signed between the petitioner and the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore, North Forest Division, second respondent herein on 10-1-1975. Several conditions were stipulated in the lease deed. According to the lease deed, the lessee was to pay rents and royalties in any Government Treasury before the 10th January of every year. The lessee was expected to pay before the expiry of the period or on determination of the lease by either party, an amount equal to the annual dead rent or such higher amount as may be fixed by the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore in his discretion as compensation for damage to the land covered by the lease. The seigniorage fee should be paid in advance for a minimum quantity of 15 M3 at Rs. 50/- per M3. The lessee was also expected to pay all other taxes in full settlement before the 5th of every month. A security deposit of Rs. 2, 000/- was also to be made and pledged in the name of the second respondent herein. The lessee was also expected to pay the seigniorage area assignment and other sums in force and notified from time to time. 2. When the lease came to an end on 10-1-1980, the petitioner was not in arrears of any seigniorage fee or other lawful levies. While so, the petitioner was surprised to receive the proceedings dated 18-2-1982 of the second respondent herein demanding a sum of Rs. 13, 586.80 being local cess and Rs. 75, 482.10 being local cess surcharge. The order purported to state that the petitioner had removed a quantity of 603.857 cum. black granite up to 30-11-1978 and that local cess and local cess surcharge were also chargeable under the Madras Panchayat Act 1958. 13, 586.80 being local cess and Rs. 75, 482.10 being local cess surcharge. The order purported to state that the petitioner had removed a quantity of 603.857 cum. black granite up to 30-11-1978 and that local cess and local cess surcharge were also chargeable under the Madras Panchayat Act 1958. The levy of local cess was purported to be made at the rate of 45 paise for every rupee of land revenue and the levy of local cess surchage was purported to be made at such rates as the Panchayat union may consider suitable, the maximum being Rs.2.50 per rupee of land revenue. Accordingly, the second respondent demanded a sum of Rs.89, 088.90 towards local cess and local cess surchage. In the order dated 18-2-1982 the second respondent did not furnish any particulars as to how the amount of Rs. 13, 586.80 and an amount of Rs.75, 482.10 have been arrived at towards the local cess and local cess surcharge. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to forbear from levying or demanding from the petitioner, local cess or local cess surcharge on the seigniorage for quarrying black granite pursuant to the demand made by the second respondent in his proceedings reference 16688/79.L. dated 18-2-1982 and C. No. 3174/ 84.L. dated 17-5-85 and pass such further orders as may be deemed fit and proper. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is unsustainable. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that under Ss. 115 and 116 of the Panchayat Act, State Government does not have competence to demand local cess or local cess surcharge. In support of the said contention the learned counsel cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it is observed that royalty is a tax, and as such a cess on royalty being a tax on royalty, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature because S. 9 of the Central Act covers the field and the State Legislature is denuded of its competence under Entry 23 of List II. In any event we are of the opinion that cess on royalty cannot be sustained under Entry 49 of List II as being a tax on land. Royalty on mineral rights is not a tax on land but a payment for the use of land." 5. The entries which are relevant for the purpose of determining the questions are : Entry 54, List I reads : "Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest." Entry 23, List II reads : " Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union." Entry 49, List 11 reads : " Taxes on lands and buildings." Entry 50, List II reads : " Taxes on mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development." " The language of Entries 23 and 50 in List II clearly subjects the authority or jurisdiction on the State Legislature to any enactment made by the Parliament. Entry 23 talks of regulation and Entry 50 talks of taxes on mineral rights. It therefore could not be disputed that if the cess imposed under S. 115 of the Madras Village Panchayat Act is a cess or tax on mineral rights then that jurisdiction could be exercised by the State Legislature subject to the law enacted by the Parliament. The Parliament in S.9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 has fixed the limits of royalty on the mining rights." 6. On the other hand the learned Government Advocate submitted that the ruling of the Supreme Court in India Cement case will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the India Cement case dealt with the question of royalty and not with the question of seigniorage fee. In answer to the said contention Mr. On the other hand the learned Government Advocate submitted that the ruling of the Supreme Court in India Cement case will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the India Cement case dealt with the question of royalty and not with the question of seigniorage fee. In answer to the said contention Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a ruling of a learned single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 10406 of 1990 dated 23-1-1991 wherein Ramalingam, J. has observed as follows : "* In the instant case, it cannot be denied or disputed that the cess is sought to be imposed for the privilege given to the petitioner for extraction of minerals for which he has to pay royalty - be it called seigniorage fee. In law, there is no distinction or difference between royalty and seigniorage fee. Both reflect the sovereign right of the State to collect sums from the grantee for privilege to quarry minerals. 7. But for S.15 of the Act, the State Government could have no power to make even rules relating to minor minerals. It is only in exercise of that delegated power the State has levied seigniorage fee for extraction of the minerals." On the authority of the above judgment Mr. Vijay Narayan submitted that there is no difference with regard to royalty and seigniorage fee and the above judgment squarely applies to the petitioner's case. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is grave infirmity in the impugned order. Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.