Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-2-86 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the impugned orders to the extent they assess or re-assess the petitioner in respect of rhyolite used as masonary stone or ballast as per the rates men- tioned in Item No. 5 of the Schedule I for the relevant period. The respondents were further directed not to treat or assess the mineral rhyolite used as masonary stone or ballast as entry Item No. 5 of the Schedule I of the Rules. (2). The controversy in the present case is whether the mineral rhyolite used as stone/ballast falls under Item No. 5 or under the residuary Clause of Item No. 16 of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (for short, `the Rules). This controversy stands concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this court given today itself in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 954 of 1986 (State of Rajasthan and another vs. M/s. Ratan Stone Industries.) (3). The royalty payable on various items is co-related to the use to which the mineral is put and the mineral rhyolite used as ballast will not be covered by Item No. 5 of Schedule I of the Rules and will fall within the residuary Clause 16 of the Schedule I. The mineral rhyolite used in ballast is different from the rhyolite used in chips and powder making. Item No. 5 of Scheduel I deals with the chips and powder making mineral. In Column No.2 of the entry No.5 under the heading ``Name of the Mineral chips and powder making mineral (Marble Dolomites Rhyolite, cheset, sepaintine and lime stone) have been mentioned while in Column No.3 under the heading ``the Quality, Shape and Size of the Minerals in respect of which the rates of royalty are given, is specified as ``chips and powder making. The words chips and powder making used in column No.2 and 3 clearly envisages that Item No.5 of Schedule I is restricted to the rhyvolite used for chips and powder making and does not include all kinds of rhyolite irrespective of its quality and use. The State Government, by way of amendment, has provided different rates of royalty for these two kinds of rhyolite. The State Government, by way of amendment, has provided different rates of royalty for these two kinds of rhyolite. In the amendment made in the Rules in November, 1983, the chips and powder making rhyolite is mentioned as Item No.6 while the rhyolite used as masonary stone/ballast is mentioned separately as Item No. 7. Since the government itself treated these two rhyolite differently and different rates of royalty have been prescribed, the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Item No.5 of Schedule I is, therefore, just and proper and is in consonance with the words and expression used. The rhyolite used as masonary stone/ ballast and rhyolite used as chips and powder making are two different qualities of the mineral and the former is not covered within Item No.5 of Schedule I. (4). In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.