JUDGMENT 1. - This matter comes up on an application for taking on record the order dated 6-4-2012 passed by Mining Engineer Dholpur whereby it has been ordered that royalty on sand stone shall be charged only once. 2. Mr. Zakir Hussain has no serious objection to taking on record the order dated 6-4-2012. 3. The application is allowed and the order dated 6-4-2012 is taken on record. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case has been heard finally. 5. This petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed not to charge double royalty upon rough sandstone on the one hand and polished/ sandstone on the other in view of order dated 9-2-2004 passed by the Additional Director Mines and the order dated 11-2-2008 passed by this court in writ petition No.1802/2004. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has also today placed on record the order dated 6-4-2012, issued under the hand of the Mining Engineer Dholpur, whereby he has directed the contractor Rudmal not to collect double royalty on the rough sand stone and polished/ cut sandstone as in terms of the MMCR 1986 as royalty on minerals is payable only once i.e. either on rough sandstone or polished/ cut sandstone. 7. Mr. Zakir Hussain has fairly conceded that in terms of MMCR 1986 royalty on minerals is recoverable only on one occasion, whether in their rough state or finished state. He however submits that in the event royalty is sought to be charged, it is incumbent upon the person carrying the minerals to establish that royalty has already been paid on the mineral in issue and cannot be charged again. 8. Counsel submits that in view of the provisions of the MMCR 1986 and the order dated 6-4-2012 nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition and in any event there is no specific allegation in the writ petition of charging double royalty. 9. I have considered the writ petition, the reply thereto and submissions of the counsel. 10. 8. Counsel submits that in view of the provisions of the MMCR 1986 and the order dated 6-4-2012 nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition and in any event there is no specific allegation in the writ petition of charging double royalty. 9. I have considered the writ petition, the reply thereto and submissions of the counsel. 10. In the facts of the case and particularly in view view of the order dated 9-2-2004 passed by the Additional Director Mines and the order dated 6-4-2012 passed by Mining Engineer Dholpur this writ petition would stand disposed of with the direction that royalty on the same mineral cannot be charged twice over one when the sandstone is in its rough state and subsequently when it is cut and polished in slabs or tiles. However when a demand for payment of royalty on cut/ polished sandstone is made it would be incumbent on the owner/ bailee of such cut/ polished sandstone to establish that qua the goods in issue, royalty has been paid on the sandstone in issue in its rough state. 11. It is further made clear that where double royalty is sought to be charged by the contractor appointed by the State for collection of excess royalty, the aggrieved party will be free to make a specific complaint qua the goods in issue, whereupon necessary enquiry would be made by the competent authority and requisite action taken. 12. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. Stay application similarly disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******