All the aforesaid five writ petitions involve common questions of law; therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For convenient disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions, the facts given in the case of M.P. Lime Manufacturers Association and another v. State of M.P. & others [Writ Petition No. 1933/98] are taken into consideration. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are Non-Trading Corporation registered under the Non-Trading Corporation Act. The Association looks after the interest of its members. The petitioner's members are mining lease holders who extract limestone and other minerals from the leased area in District Jabalpur and Satna in the State of M.P. The State is already recovering necessary tax and cess on the minerals which are excavated. In addition to that, the State Government has issued a Circular dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure P-3) to all the Commissioners, Collectors, Director Geology of Mining, Additional Director and Mining Authorities to seek voluntary contribution for development of the local area. By this circular, the State Government has called upon all the mining lease holders to pay contribution at the rate of 10% of the royalty on limestone and various other minerals shown therein for development of the local area and to meet the expenses arising out of mining pollution and ecological imbalance. Thereafter, the State Government has issued another circular giving guidelines, vide Annexure P-4, that how the amount, which is collected, is to be distributed. The petitioners by this petition have challenged the Circular (Annexure P-3), by which the present levy has been imposed and procedure for collection and utilization of that amount has been laid down. It is contended that this levy is totally ultra-vires of Articles 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that this levy has no legal sanction whatsoever. It has neither been under any statutory provisions of law nor any law has been passed by the State Legislature for collecting 10% voluntary contribution for development of the villages. A return has been filed by the State Government and the State Government has admitted that this circular has no legal sanction whatsoever and it is only a voluntary contribution. It is submitted that no coercive steps can be taken for recovery of this amount and they have denied that this is being enforced by the authorities. A return has been filed by the State Government and the State Government has admitted that this circular has no legal sanction whatsoever and it is only a voluntary contribution. It is submitted that no coercive steps can be taken for recovery of this amount and they have denied that this is being enforced by the authorities. This assertion of the State that the lessee is not coerced to pay 10% of royalty on limestone does not appear to be correct, the documents filed by the petitioner belies this. The fact remains that the State Government has admitted in the return that this so cal1ed levy of voluntary contribution has no legal sanction and it is not being enforced under any statutory authority nor the State Legislature passed any enactment so as to facilitate the recovery of this 10% voluntary contribution from the lease holders. We directed the Advocate General to find out that under what circumstances, this circular was issued. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned Advocate General, has very frankly stated at the bar that this levy is without any legal sanction. He has further stated that this levy is totally without legal sanction and no step for recovery of 10% royalty can be enforced by any coercive means. It is established law that the State cannot recover any tax unless it has a legal sanction. Article 265 of the Constitution of India says that no tax shal1 be levied or collected except by authority of law. In the present case, as per the admission of the respondent-State in the return and the statement made by the learned Advocate General this kind of voluntary contribution has no legal sanction whatsoever. We fail to understand that how this circular was issued for recovery of 10% so cal1ed voluntary contribution and a detailed procedure has been prescribed in Annexure P-4, how the amount is recovered and how it has to be utilised. This shows that the State Government has done it consciously though they have come with a plea that it has no legal sanction. Once this circular; has been issued by the State Government, normal1y the subordinate authority cannot ignore it; therefore, it operates like a law for subordinate authorities for effecting the recovery, though it does not have any legal sanction behind it. Once this circular; has been issued by the State Government, normal1y the subordinate authority cannot ignore it; therefore, it operates like a law for subordinate authorities for effecting the recovery, though it does not have any legal sanction behind it. This is a very misleading circular, which has been issued by the State Government, which lacks the legal sanction, it is likely to operate against public at large. In the present case, the petitioners have come up with the case that these circulars lack legal sanction, stil1 it is being enforced and recovery of 10% towards voluntary contribution is made from the petitioner's Members. We hold that these circulars have no legal sanction and they are illegal ex-facie. Such circulars coming from the State Government are likely to be misunderstood by the subordinate authority and it may play havoc with the citizen of the country. We do not want to prosecute the matter further in view of the frank and honest admission by the learned Advocate General that these circulars lack legal sanction. In view of the above observation, we quash the circular dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure P-3) and the procedure (Annexure P-4) and direct that no authority shall enforce these circulars and impose recovery of 10% voluntary contribution, as it has no legal sanction whatsoever. All the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.