Judgment N.PANDEY, J. 1. In this bunch of writ petitions the petitioners, who are brick manufacturers, have questioned the constitutional validity of rule 26-A of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, substituted by S.O. No. 59, dated 26-3-1987, whereby and whereunder the State Government had in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 15(1) and (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called "the Act") made a provision to determine consolidated amount of royalty to be paid by Brick kiln owners/Brick earth removers, per kiln, per annum a fixed number of bricks for every classified area.As a result of introduction of this system, the previous method to fix amount of royalty on brick earth to be paid @ Rs. 2.50 per cubic metre provided in Schedule II framed under Rule 26(i)(b) had ceased to operate. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that provisions as incorporated under Rule 26-A and notifications issued therein by the State Government are ultra vires and in conflict to the provision of Sec. 15(1) and (3) of the Act, therefore, beyond the legislative competence of the State Government. Further grievance is even notification issued by the State Government in its power conferred by the new rule to re-classify areas in different categories and to determine number of bricks equivalent to brick earth to charge consolidated amount of royalty is quite arbitrary, irrational and unworkable. 3. In these backgrounds before proceeding to adjudicate the grievances of the petitioners, it would be advisable to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. 4. There is no dispute that Brick earth is a minor mineral within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Act and every person has to pay royalty for extracting or removing such earth for manufacturing the bricks. Certain definitions as contained in Clauses (a), (c) and (e) of Sec. 3 of the Act provide as follows :- "3. 4. There is no dispute that Brick earth is a minor mineral within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Act and every person has to pay royalty for extracting or removing such earth for manufacturing the bricks. Certain definitions as contained in Clauses (a), (c) and (e) of Sec. 3 of the Act provide as follows :- "3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-(a) "minerals" includes all minerals except mineral oils xx xx xx xx(c) "mining lease" means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose :(e) "minor minerals" means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral." 5 Sec. 9 requires a holder of mining lease to pay royalty in respect of minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub lessee from the leased area. Secs. 10 to 12 prescribe a procedure for prospecting licences and mining leases. Before noticing other provisions and embarking upon consideration of the issues, it would be useful to know the meaning of "royalty".The term "royalty" as defined in Whartons "Law Lexicon" Fourteenth Edition is as follows :- "Royalty, payment to a patentee by agreement on every article made according to his patent, or to an author by a publisher on every copy of his book sold; or to the owner of minerals for the right of working the same on every ton or other weight raised."In Halsburys "Laws of England", 4th Edition, royalty has been defined thus :--"224. Rents and royalties. An agreement for a lease usually contains stipulations as to the dead rents and other rents and royalties to be reserved by, and the covenants and provisions to be inserted in, the lease." "236. Royalties. A royalty, in the sense in which the word is used in connection with mining leases, is a payment to the lessor proportionate to the amount of the demised mineral worked within a specific period." "238. Covenant to pay rent and royalties. Royalties. A royalty, in the sense in which the word is used in connection with mining leases, is a payment to the lessor proportionate to the amount of the demised mineral worked within a specific period." "238. Covenant to pay rent and royalties. Nearly every mining lease contains a convenant by the lessee for payment of the specified rent and royalties." In H.R.S. Murthy V/s. Collector of Chittoor, (1964) 6 SCR 666 (673) : ( AIR 1965 SC 177 at p. 180) the Supreme Court said that "royalty normally connotes the payment made for the materials or minerals won from the land. 6. Sec. 13 of the Act empowers the Central Government to frame rules in respect of "minerals". Sec. 14 says that provisions of Secs. 5 to 13 of the Act Shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. Sec. 15(1) prescribes different guidelines for exercise of the rule-making power of the State Government. Relevant provisions in the present context are as follows:- "15. Power of State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals : (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rule for regulating the grant of quarry leases, and mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith.(1-A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely, x x x x (g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable; x x x x 7. As per Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15 of the Act the holder of mining lease or any other mineral concessions granted under any rule made under Sub-sec. (1) shall pay royalty at the rate prescribed from time to time by the State Government. It would also be useful to notice the said provisions : "3. As per Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15 of the Act the holder of mining lease or any other mineral concessions granted under any rule made under Sub-sec. (1) shall pay royalty at the rate prescribed from time to time by the State Government. It would also be useful to notice the said provisions : "3. The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concessions granted under any rule made under sub-section(1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals: Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of three years." A proper reading of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15 will show that no power is conferred upon the State Government under this provision to make a lessee liable to pay royalty. Sub-sec. (3) makes such holder liable to pay royalty in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or his agent, manager, employee, at the rate prescribed from time to time by the State Government under its rule-making power in respect of minor minerals. 8. There is no dispute that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government under its rule-making power as envisaged under Sec. 15(1) and (3) to prescribe rate and mode to recover dead rent or royalty with respect to minor minerals removed or consumed by a lessee or a permit holder. 8. There is no dispute that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Government under its rule-making power as envisaged under Sec. 15(1) and (3) to prescribe rate and mode to recover dead rent or royalty with respect to minor minerals removed or consumed by a lessee or a permit holder. Therefore, the State Government while exercising its power conferred by Sec. 15(1) of the Act substituted Rule 26-A to the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, in these terms :- "26-A. Consolidation of royalty on brick earth.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the State Government shall by notification in the Official Gazette determine a consolidated amount of royalty which may be revised once in three years to be paid by the brick kiln owner/brick earth remover per kiln per annum to the State Government in a manner prescribed therein on a fixed number of bricks for every classified area :Provided that the State Government may for the purpose of determining the consolidated amount of royalty to be paid, classify the places into different categories taking such facts into account which the State Government think proper :Provided further that if the brick earth remover/brick kiln owner fails to make payment, of the consolidated amount of royalty in the manner so prescribed, he shall not be allowed to carry on the business and the competent officer or any other officer duly authorised in this behalf by the State Government, shall be competent to stop such business. Explanation :- For the purpose of this rule- (i) Business means and includes laying, burning or selling of bricks by bricks earth remover/brick kiln owner and such other activities as are associated with manufacturing of bricks.(ii) For the purpose of this rule brick earth remover means and includes person or persons by whom or on whose behalf the brick earth is removed for manufacturing bricks.(iii) For the purpose of this rule brick kiln owner means a person who owns the brick kiln or on whose behalf bricks are manufactured in that kiln and includes manager, agent and lessee of such person."Rule 27, which exists in its original form, prescribes procedures for grant of quarrying permits in areas other than those in reserved or protected forests. The said provision is reproduced hereunder :-"27. Grant of quarrying permits in areas other than those in reserved or protected forests. The said provision is reproduced hereunder :-"27. Grant of quarrying permits in areas other than those in reserved or protected forests. - (1) On an application made to him, the competent officer may grant a quarrying permit in Form "E" to any person to extract and remove from any specified land within the limits of his jurisdiction any mineral not exceeding three thousand cubic metres in quantity under any one permit, on prepayment of royalty at the rates specified in Schedule II. Before granting such permit, the Competent Officer shall satisfy himself that the requirement of the permit is genuine and that it does not obviate the necessity of obtaining a mining lease in the area in respect of which the permit for extraction of the mineral has been applied for.(2) The Competent Officer may refuse the issue of such permits for reasons to be recorded by him in writing." 9 Therefore, to give effect to the provisions as noticed above the State Government in exercise of its power conferred by Rule 26A of the Rules and having regard to location of the land and population, classified areas in different categories in order to prescribe consolidated amount of royalty at a prescribed rate to be paid thereon by brick kiln owner and brick earth remover, published notification at the end of Schedule II to the Rules. 10. A bare glance to the notification would reveal that with respect to bricks manufactured by mechanised kiln to a quantity of 25 lakhs, the consolidated amount of royalty per kiln per annum would be Rs. 62500.00 . Similarly, with respect to different areas having regard to the number of bricks rates etc. have also been prescribed. 11. Admittedly, a brick manufacturer is required to make an application to the competent officer for grant of permit in "Form E" as prescribed under Rule 27. A bare reference to the conditions as provided in Form E would indicate that a permit holder will have to indicate the name and description of minor minerals, purpose for which it will be used, number of quantity of materials, rate of royalty and total amount paid. A bare reference to the conditions as provided in Form E would indicate that a permit holder will have to indicate the name and description of minor minerals, purpose for which it will be used, number of quantity of materials, rate of royalty and total amount paid. Apart from the requirements as incorporated in "Form E", it would further reveal that in terms of Rule, 27, the competent authority while granting quarry permit to any person, within the limit of his jurisdiction, will have to be satisfied that the amount of royalty has been prepaid at the rate specified in Schedule II.Therefore, there appears no dispute that prepayment of royalty is one of the conditions for grant of a permit in Form E. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that a bare reference to Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 15 of the Act would show that unless and until minor minerals are removed or consumed, no amount of royalty can be charged. Royalty is always payable on a proportion of the minerals. It is always relatable to the act of extraction and removal. In other words, before proceeding to charge the amount of royalty the State authorities will have to identify the actual extent of the mineral removed or consumed. 13. Submission, therefore, is that the Central Government while giving authority to the State Government to frame rules under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 15 has limited the rule-making power to charge amount of royalty only to an extent the minor mineral was removed or consumed. The provision as made out under Rule 26A to realise consolidated amount of royalty with respect to minor mineral, which is yet to be consumed or removed is beyond the legislative competence of the State Government. 14. There cannot be any dispute that royalty is payable on a proportion of the minerals extracted, because it is directly relatable only to the extent such minerals are consumed. Such questions are no longer res integra since from time to time in different cases, Supreme Court has arrived on similar terms. Reference in this regard can be made to some of the decisions in the cases of The Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. V/s. The State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459 ; Baijnath Kedia etc. V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1436 ; D. K. Trivedi and Sons etc. etc. Reference in this regard can be made to some of the decisions in the cases of The Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. V/s. The State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459 ; Baijnath Kedia etc. V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1436 ; D. K. Trivedi and Sons etc. etc. V/s. State of Gujarat etc. etc. ( AIR 1986 SC 1323 and The India Cement Ltd. etc. etc. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu etc., AIR 1990 SC 85 . 15. Therefore, having regard to the relevant statutory requirements and different authorities of the Apex Court, there cannot be any dispute that the State Government before proceeding to charge the amount of royalty, is required to identify the extent of the minerals removed or consumed by a brick manufacturer. 16. This has not been disputed by the petitioners that in order to give effect to the provisions as incorporated under Rule 26A, the State Government has already issued a notification classifying areas in different categories to determine actual number of bricks equivalent to brick earth to consolidate the amount of royalty. In other words, the moment a brick manufacturer makes an application in Form E indicating actual quantity of bricks to be manufactured by him, the quantity of bricks earth to be consumed for manufacturing of bricks is identified and, therefore, he is required to pay amount of royalty to that extent only. Thus, it is wrong to say that without identifying the extent of brick earth, the State authorities are realising amount of royalty. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the State pointed out that identical question was raised for discussion before the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Ram Brick Field V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 All LJ 728. In that case, Brick manufacturers were aggrieved by an order of the Government wherein they were asked to pay royalty at the enhanced rate as provided under the First Schedule of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules. The petitioners had also questioned validity of Rule 54(1) on the said rules whereby brick manufacturers were required to deposit royalty for the total materials permitted to be extracted on grant of permit. Argument was that a bare reference to subsection (3) of Sec. 15 would show unless and until minerals are removed or consumed, no demand of royalty can be made. Argument was that a bare reference to subsection (3) of Sec. 15 would show unless and until minerals are removed or consumed, no demand of royalty can be made. Therefore, the instant rule requiring the brick manufacturers to deposit the royalty for the total quantity of materials was illegal and invalid. The Court while answering the aforesaid proposition, held in the following terms:- "27. Sec. 15(3) of the Act provides for the payment of royalty by the holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under subs-section (1) shall pay royalty in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or on his behalf does not either prescribe the rate of royalty or the manner of its collection. Both the manner of collection and the rate of royalty are prescribed by Rule 54(1) of the Rules. There is no prohibition in Sec. 15(3) of the Act on the demand for royalty in, advance. Rule 54(1) of the Rule is, therefore, valid. It may be that in a case where the quantity of mineral consumed is less than the estimated consumption on the basis of which the royalty has been paid by the holder or a mining lease or mineral concession, the said person would be entitled to a refund x x x x x x x x x" 18. I find myself in full agreement with the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court. It is well settled that once entitlement of the State to realise amount of royalty with respect to minor mineral is established, it will be complete prerogative of the Legislatures to adopt particular mode or modes for its collection from a lessee or a brick manufacturer. Therefore, it will not be proper to hold that while adopting a procedure to realise a consolidated amount of royalty in terms of Rule 26A, the Legislature have transgressed their limits and power conferred under Sec. 15(1) or (3) of the Act. Reference in this regard can also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Srinivasa Theatre V/s. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 999 : (1992 AIR SOW 899). 19. Reference in this regard can also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Srinivasa Theatre V/s. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 999 : (1992 AIR SOW 899). 19. It will be also useful to notice the views expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Venkateshwara Theatre V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1947 : (1993 AIR SCW 2098), where more or less identical controversy arose in a matter relating to payment of entertainment tax. Because, on account of amendment of Sections 4A and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, by amending Act 24 of 1984, the earlier mode of levy of tax on the basis of percentage of each payment for demand prescribed in Sec. 4 was replaced by a mode similar to that provided under Sec. 4C on the basis of percentage of the gross collection capacity per show, varying with the category of local area for which the cinema theatre was situated. The constitutional validity of the amending provisions were challenged mainly on three grounds viz. (i) the levy of Entertainment Tax on the basis of gross collection capacity without, reference to the actual amount, collected or the actual number of tickets sold or the number of persons admitted to each show was ultra vires the legislative power conferred on the State Legislatures; (ii) Sec. 4 was hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as by treating unequal as equal gave rise to discrimination; and (iii) the levy of entertainment tax being exproprietary amounts to unreasonable restriction on the right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g). 20. Undisputedly, ground No. (i) of the aforesaid case is almost similar to questions raised in the present case. Therefore, it will be appropriate to quote the relevant findings of the Supreme Court from the aforesaid report hereunder :- ---- "14. 20. Undisputedly, ground No. (i) of the aforesaid case is almost similar to questions raised in the present case. Therefore, it will be appropriate to quote the relevant findings of the Supreme Court from the aforesaid report hereunder :- ---- "14. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe fact that instead of tax being levied on the basis of the payment for admission made by the person actually admitted in the theatre, it is being levied on the basis of the gross collection capacity per show calculated on the basis of the national aggregate of all the payments for admission which the proprietor would realise per show if all the seats or accommodation in respect of the place of entertainment are occupied and calculated at the maximum rate of payment for admission would not in our opinion, alter the nature of the tax or the subject-matter of the tax which continues to be a tax on entertainment. The mode of levy based on per payment of admission prescribed under Sec. 4(1) prior to amendment by Act 24 of 1984 necessitated enquiry into the number of shows held at the theatre and the number of persons admitted to a cinema theatre for each show and gave room for abuse both on the part of proprietor as well as other officers in-charge of assessment and collection of tax. The mode of levy or measure of the tax prescribed under Sec. 4(1), as substituted by Act, 24 of 1984, is a more convenient mode of levy of the tax inasmuch as it dispenses with the need to verify or enquire into the number of persons admitted each show and to verity the correctness or otherwise of the returns submitted by the proprietor containing the number of persons admitted to each show and the amount of tax collected." 21. Apart from the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court or Allahabad High Court, as noticed above, admittedly the procedure to make an application in Form E for grant of permit for brick manufacturing is on prepayment of royalty as required under Rule 27. There is no dispute that condition of prepayment is in existence from the very inception of the Rules, but the competence of the State was never challenged. There is no dispute that condition of prepayment is in existence from the very inception of the Rules, but the competence of the State was never challenged. There is no denial that a brick manufacturer while making an application in Form E is also required to disclose the specified quantity of bricks to be manufactured after grant of permit. This is not in dispute that on the basis of actual number of bricks, disclosed in Form E by a brick manufacturer, the amount of royalty is charged. Therefore, to my mind, there appears no substance in the grievance of the petitioners that consolidated amount of royalty is being charged without identifying the actual consumption of minor minerals. 22. Even a bare glance to the provisions of Sec. 15(3) of the Act would also show that there is no restriction over the competence of the State Government to prescribe mode or modes for realisation of such royalty. The Parliament while empowering the State Government to frame a suitable rule for regulating grant of quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concessions, in respect to minor minerals for the purpose enumerated under Sub-sec. (1) has given complete option to prescribe a mode or modes of payment. Therefore, there appears no scope for the petitioners to question the validity of the impugned rule, if a particular mode has been prescribed. 23. That apart, there are several decisions of the Supreme Court laying down principles and guidance for a Court so far taxing statutes are concerned. Undisputedly, taxing statutes are not wholly immune from attack on the ground that they infringe equality clause of Art. 14. But to underline a principle, while laying down particular mode or modes to levy a tax is complete prerogative of legislatures. The very fact that brick manufacturers are not able to deny their liability to pay royalty, whether it would be on a consolidated basis or otherwise cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. Even the trend of recent decisions of the Supreme Court would show that in regard to taxing statute the Courts have conceded a greater latitude to the legislatures, both in the matter of classification of the persons as also the mode and method of recovery. Even the trend of recent decisions of the Supreme Court would show that in regard to taxing statute the Courts have conceded a greater latitude to the legislatures, both in the matter of classification of the persons as also the mode and method of recovery. Reference in this connection can be usefully be made to some of the judgments in the cases of The Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. V/s. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1664 : (1990 Tax LR 651), Sri Srinivasa Theatre V/s. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1992 SC 999 , Karnataka Film Industry Development Corporation Ltd. V/s. State of Karnataka. AIR 1995 Kant 397 and B.P. Automobile V/s. State of Karnataka, (1984) 55 STC 93 . 24. Before concluding the answers, I am also tempted at this stage to gainfully quote a passage from the judgment in the case of B.P. Automobiles V/s. State of Karnataka (supra) where Hon ble Mr. Justice Venkatachalaiah, as he then was, discussed about the approach which a Court has to adopt while examining the question of constitutional vires of enactment. The relevant passage of the said report is reproduced hereunder:- "Even if there is a doubt in the mind of the Court in regard to a question of constitutionality it must be resolved by upholding constitutionality. Thomas Cooley (A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitation, page 182) says: It has been said by an eminent jurist, that when courts are called upon to pronounce the invalidity of an Act of legislation, passed with all the forms and ceremonies requisite to give it the force of law, they will approach the question with great caution, examine it in every possible aspect, and ponder upon it as long as delineation and patient attention can throw any new light upon the subject and never declare a statute void, unless the nullity and invalidity of the Act are placed in their judgment beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be solved in favour of the legislative action, and the Act be sustained. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x" 25. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the State Government was fully competent to consolidate the amount of royalty in terms of the impugned Rule. A reasonable doubt must be solved in favour of the legislative action, and the Act be sustained. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x" 25. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the State Government was fully competent to consolidate the amount of royalty in terms of the impugned Rule. The very fact that a brick manufacturer while disclosing its intention to manufacture a particular quantity of bricks in Form E on pre paid royalty, actually admits the extent of minerals to be consumed on such manufacturing. Therefore, the procedure to consolidate the amount of royalty on such disclosure does not make the system repulsive, irrational or unacceptable, so as to struck down as ultra vires to the provisions of Sec. 15(1) or (3) of the Act or Art. 14 or any of the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution. 26. In the result, I find no merit in these writ applications and they are accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. The interim orders, if any, in these cases, shall stand vacated forthwith.Applications dismissed.