Judgment 1. The appeal is barred by limitation. 2. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 2.2.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application being CWJC No. 2358 of 2000 against the order dated 26.2.2000 passed by the respondent-Mines Commissioner, Bihar, Patna and directing the members of the appellant-Association who are crusher owners to pay royalty of Rs.1,77,500/- each to the State for the financial year 1999-2000. At the same time he also directed for reopening of the assessments with regard to past six years in exercise of power under Rule 46 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 4. It is admitted position that the members of the appellant-Association are granted licences under Rule 49 of the Rules to carry on the business of minor minerals and they are engaged in crushing big stones into small stone chips. It is also admitted position that they have not been granted any permit of mining lease for carrying mining operation. In other words, they are not the holder of quarrying permit or mining lease which is a condition precedent for carrying a mining operation. The members of the appellant-association are required to have obtained "L Form Licence" for crushing the big boulders into small chips. They are also in terms of Rule 49 of the Rules and the Form L are required to maintain account of sale and purchase of stones in Form "G" and also for issuance of a challan in Form "F" to the transportor purchasers to whom they have sold the stones chips. 5. A raid was conducted by the Assistant Mining Officer in the premises of the members of the appellant-association and it was found that they have not displayed the requisite forms and accordingly, a criminal case was instituted under sections 379, 411, 420/34 IPC and under rule 49(3) of the Rules which case ultimately resulted into their discharge. Thereafter, they approached the Deputy Director of Mines under rule 40(3) of the Rules and he unsealed the premises which was sealed at the time of raid. Thereafter, they approached the Deputy Director of Mines under rule 40(3) of the Rules and he unsealed the premises which was sealed at the time of raid. Thereafter, the Department moved before the Mines Commissioner who after having considered the materials and in exercise of power under Rule 46(1) of the Rules found that stone crushing by the members of the appellant- association are in excess of the big stones received from the quarry permit holders, in other words, the members of the appellant- association were using the stolen or unauthorised quarry stones, for which he found that the members of the appellants- association are liable to pay royalty for the assessment year 1999-2000 and also ordered for reopening of the assessment with regard to past six years on the said ground. 6. The learned Single Judge has held that the members of the appellant-association were liable to pay royalty with regard to stones which were not accounted for, in the sense, which were not purchased by them from the holders of mining lease or quarry permits. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the members of the appellant-association have not been granted mining lease or any other mineral concession and as such they are not liable to pay royalty even if they have consumed big stones in excess of what has been shown to have purchased by them from the holders of mining lease for the purpose of crushing the stones. In this connection he relied upon Section 15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which reads as follows: "The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession 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. 8. 8. According to the said provision, royalty or dead rent, whichever is more, is required to be paid for removal or consumption of minor minerals by the holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule at the rate prescribed by the Rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals. Under the scheme of the Act, the royalty has to be paid with regard to every minor minerals extracted removed and consumed and Section 15 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules in respect of the minor minerals. In exercise of the said power, the State Government has framed 1972 Rules, as named above and Rule 4 of the Rules provides that no person shall undertake any mining operation in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a quarrying permit or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under these rules. Every holder of a quarrying permit or mining lease under the scheme of the Act or the Rules has to pay royalty. Under rule 26 of the Rules when a lease is granted or renewed, dead rent, royalty and surface rent shall be charged as provided under the rules. Rule 40 of the rules provides penalty for unauthorised extraction and removal of minor minerals. It provides inter alia that whoever is found to be extracting or removing minor minerals or on whose behalf such extraction is being made he be an agent, a manager an employee or a contractor or a sublessee, in contravention of the Rules shall be presumed to be a party to the illegal removal of the minor minerals and shall be punished with imprisonment as provided therein. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 40 provides that whoever removes minor minerals without valid lease and permit inter alia in contravention of the provisions of the Rules, he shall be liable to pay the price thereof and the Government may also recover from such person rent, royalty or taxes, as the case may be, for the relevant period. 9. Thus, under the scheme of the Act, no minor minerals can be extracted without payment of royalty and dead rent etc. If quarrying of minor minerals is under a valid permit then the royalty is recovered. 9. Thus, under the scheme of the Act, no minor minerals can be extracted without payment of royalty and dead rent etc. If quarrying of minor minerals is under a valid permit then the royalty is recovered. In case where the stones are removed from unauthorised mining contrary to the provisions of the rules, then there is no payment of royalty and in that case whoever removed the same, he may not be licencee or a permit holder, is liable to pay royalty for the simple reason that royalty has to be paid with regard to minor minerals extracted. It has been found as a matter of fact that the owners of the stone crushers crushed more stones than what was purchased by the quarry permit holders or the licencees. They have not accounted as to whether any royalty has been paid to the excess stones which have been crushed by them. Thus, they are liable to pay royalty etc. with regard to unaccounted stones received and consumed by them. Thus, the submission advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellant that as they being not permit or lease holders, their liability does not arise for payment of royalty is without any substance. 10. The learned Single Judge has also noticed in his order that it has been admitted on behalf of the appellant during course of argument that more stones than what have been purchased by them from the licencees or permit holders have been crushed by. them. In that view of the matter, their stand of not paying the royalty for the same is not only unequitable and dishonest act on their part but that also violates the provisions of the Act and the Rules and as such the Court cannot give them protection. 11. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.