Judgment N.W. Sambre, J. Heard respective counsel. 2. All the above petitions involve identical issue as regards payment of Royalty by the petitioner while executing the Government contracts. 3. For the convenience the facts in W.P. No. 1122/2002 are taken into consideration for delivering the judgment. 4. The petitioners claiming to be registered with the Public Works Department as contractor have questioned the act of the authorities in deducting the amount from his running bill under the head 'royalty' to be paid for the minor minerals used by petitioners at the time of execution of work in question which came to be allotted to him by the Respondent-Department. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that when the contract under reference was executed the issue about payment of royalty was governed by the policy reflected in Government Resolution dated February 10, 1976. According to the petitioner, the work that was executed by him and the demand made towards payment of royalty is processed during the payment of his bill in accordance with GR dated 10.5.1976. In support of the said contention, petitioner has produced the copy of order whereby permission was granted by the Revenue authorities for extraction of minor mineral's under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioner has also produced the receipts of royalty payments made by him to the Government. 6. It is the claim of the petitioner that having regard to the fact that it was noticed by the Government that minerals which were required to be used at the time of execution of Government work are used by the contractors in private work. The Government has changed its policy on 18th October, 2001. According to the petitioner, the said Government Resolution dated 18th October 2001 though prospective in nature, the Respondent-Department is trying to recover the royalty with retrospective effect from the petitioner for the Government work executed by him. The petitioner has tried to substantiate the same by placing reliance upon the payments made by him towards the royalty to the Government as narrated here-in-above. 7. The petitioners have further submitted that they are in possession of enough evidence so as to substantiate their claim for payment of royalty for the material used by them for execution of Govt. contracts. 7. The petitioners have further submitted that they are in possession of enough evidence so as to substantiate their claim for payment of royalty for the material used by them for execution of Govt. contracts. The petitioners, as such, submit that having already paid royalty for mine material which is used by them for execution of contract, as such it is not open for the respondents - officials to deduct the amount of royalty from their running bill and such deduction if any is illegal. It is further claim of the petitioners that if in addition to payment of royalty made by them the amount is permitted to be deducted from their running bill, then it will be a case where the petitioners are required to pay the royalty twice for the same work. 8. In the light of above, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents - officials, by injuncting them from deducting the amount of royalty from the running bills while making payment to the petitioners prior to the coming into effect of Resolution dated 18.10.2001. The petitioners have sought further declaration that respondent no.5, i.e. the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has no authority to deduct the royalty from the running bills of the petitioners or in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners have further prayed for refund of royalty amount which has been deducted from the running bills. 9. The District Mining Officer, in his reply, has pointed out that the allegations made in the petition are vague in nature and are not substantiated with any evidence. The respondent denied the claim of the petitioners that they have used mines material for the execution of the Govt. contract secured from different agencies and different persons to whom the petitioners have paid royalty and who, in turn, have paid the same to the revenue authorities. It is further alleged by the said authority that the petitioners have failed to produce transit passes, which is in the form of evidence so as to substantiate the claim of payment of royalty. The respondents have further invited attention of this Court to the conduct of the various contractors of using illegally excavated minerals for execution of Govt. contract, with an intention to cause loss to the revenue. The respondents have further invited attention of this Court to the conduct of the various contractors of using illegally excavated minerals for execution of Govt. contract, with an intention to cause loss to the revenue. The respondents have invited attention of this Court to the provisions of section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and as such, submitted that the action on the part of the respondents in deducting royalty from the running bill of the petitioners is just and proper. 10. The Deputy Engineer of the office of respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 has filed an affidavit objecting the claim of the petitioners. The said respondent has pointed out that though the contract in question was entered into and the issue about the payment of royalty was governed by the Govt. Resolution dated 10.2.1976 till the Govt. Resolution dated 18.10.2001 was brought into effect, the deduction of royalty from the running bills of the petitioners is just and proper. According to the respondent, so far as the claim made by the petitioners in the petition is concerned, the respondents have rightly applied the policy as is reflected in the Govt. Resolution dated 18.10.2001. It is further claimed by the respondent that the Govt. Resolution dated 18.10.2001 is required to be given effect to in its true letter and spirit. The intention and object of issuance of said Govt. Resolution of 2001 is to avoid illegal excavation and to ensure the payment of revenue to the State Exchequer. It is further submitted by the respondent that the Department which has supervised the execution of Govt. contracts has already made provision for payment of royalty by including the same in the cost of the item while floating the contract in question and it is mandatory for the contractors like the present petitioners to pay royalty charges and produce royalty clearance certificate at the time of preparation of bill, otherwise the respondents are having every authority to recover the royalty charges. In the light of above submissions, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 11. Having considered rival contentions raised by parties, that the work in question which was executed by the petitioner was for a period in between 1999 to 2000. It is clarified that tender in this petition was floated in the year 1999 and the last date of submission of tender was 19.7.1999. 11. Having considered rival contentions raised by parties, that the work in question which was executed by the petitioner was for a period in between 1999 to 2000. It is clarified that tender in this petition was floated in the year 1999 and the last date of submission of tender was 19.7.1999. Subsequent to the above, the petitioner being successful tenderer has deposited earnest money of Rs.19,271/- Rupees Nineteen thousand two hundred seventy one) and was required to complete the tender work within a span of 24 months from the date of agreement/work order. Clause 36 of the tender document reads thus: "Clause 36 : All quarry fees, royalties, and ground rent for stacking materials, if any, should be paid by the contractor, who wil1, however, be entitled to a refund of such of the charges as permissible under the rules on obtaining a certificate from the Engineer-in-charge that the materials were required for use on Government work." 12. The reading of clause 36 (referred supra) with that of terms of the Govt. Resolution dated 10.5.1976 makes it clear that the petitioners are entitled to make payment of royalty on their own and are required to satisfy the Officer for refund of such charges in accordance with the Rules after obtaining certificate from the Engineer in-charge towards the use of the material for the Govt. work. The clause contemplates the satisfaction of the Engineer in-charge and the claim of refund towards royalty charges paid by the contractor in accordance with said 'clause 36'. In any case, the conduct of the parties to contract is required to be governed in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Govt. policy. The Govt. policy of 1976 was holding the field till the Govt. Resolution dated 18.10.2001 was brought into effect. 13. It is further worth to observe here that if the petitioners have already paid the royalty charges and the respondents are again adjusting the same in the running bills of the petitioners - contractors, in spite of the fact that the petitioners have satisfied the respondents - P.W.D. officials about payment of royalty and use of the material for execution of Govt. work, the same will amount to charging/levying royalty twice. work, the same will amount to charging/levying royalty twice. As according to the petitioners they have already paid the royalty at the time of procuring the material and the Respondent authorities are deducting the royalty charges from their bills. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioners for adjustment of claim for the royalty in their running bills needs to be redressed. 14. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners' claim is required to be tested in the light of Govt. policy dated 18.10.2001 is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that prior to the said policy of the Government dated 18.10.2001, the field was governed by the policy dated 5.10.1976. The policy dated 18.10.2001 is prospective in nature as is apparent from the language employed in the said Govt. Resolution. The said Govt. Resolution nowhere provides for the applicability of the same with retrospective effect, when in fact, the field about payment of royalty was governed by the earlier policy dated 5.10.1976. The Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 was issued by the State Government with an intention to take away the rights qua payment of royalty given to the contractors while executing the work for the State Government or the Statutory Bodies like Zilla Parishad, CIDCO, etc. By the earlier Government Policy as is reflected in Government Decision dated 10th February, 1976, certain privileges were conferred on the Contractors who were executing the work for the State Government or the Statutory Bodies as mentioned above; like that of withdrawal of minerals without payment of royalty. The subsequent Government decision dated 18th October, 2001 was issued by the State Government after having noticed misuse of privileges granted to the Contractor by the earlier Government Resolution of 1976. The State Government has, by Resolution dated 18th October, 2001, cancelled the earlier procedure of non-charging of royalty on the minerals which are used for execution of Government contracts. The Government has also declared by the decision dated 18th October, 2001 that the earlier Government decision issued in relation to non levy of royalty from the contractors who are executing the work for Government and statutory bodies is cancelled. The Government has also declared by the decision dated 18th October, 2001 that the earlier Government decision issued in relation to non levy of royalty from the contractors who are executing the work for Government and statutory bodies is cancelled. Plain reading of the language employed in the said Government Resolution, it is clear/manifest that the said G.R. is prospective in nature as the cancellation of privileges in express terms or even by necessary implication appears to be 'prospective' and not retrospective. 15. The law on the issue is very much clear. The powers can be conferred to make subordinate legislation in the shape of rules, bye-laws, etc., with retrospective operations. However, in absence of express powers or by necessary implications to that effect, a subordinate legislation be it rule, bye-law or a notification can not have retrospective operation. The Apex Court in the matter of "Panchi Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and others" reported in (2009) 2 SCC 589 , has observed thus: "9. A delegated legislation, as is well known, is ordinarily prospective in nature. A right or a liability created for the first time, can not be given retrospective effect....." 16. In the present case as it appears that since the State Government intend to levy royalty on the contractors for the first time from the date of issuance of Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001, the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001, has to be given a retrospective effect is liable to be rejected. The Apex Court in the matter of "Chandravathi P.K. and others Vs. C.K. Saji and others" reported in AIR 2004 SC 2717 , has an occasion to consider the retrospective operation of the service rules framed under the Kerala Public Health Engineering Services Rules and other allied rules. The Apex Court in paragraph 32' of the said judgment while dealing with the retrospectivity of the rule has observed that, for giving retrospective effect to a rule, there has to be a clear and express provision therefor or by necessary implication but, such retrospectivity of a rule can not be inferred only by way of surmises or conjectures. 17. The Apex Court in paragraph 32' of the said judgment while dealing with the retrospectivity of the rule has observed that, for giving retrospective effect to a rule, there has to be a clear and express provision therefor or by necessary implication but, such retrospectivity of a rule can not be inferred only by way of surmises or conjectures. 17. Perusal of the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code makes it clear that it does not confer any power on the authority to make a rule for recovery of royalty with a retrospective effect and as such in absence of any provisions contained in the Act, it is not open for the State Government by delegated legislation to recover royalty with retrospective effect. Just because the Government Resolution dated 18th October, 2001 draws upon the past events for its decision making process does not give it retrospectivity unless the statute provides for exercise of such powers and the decisions speak of retrospectivity in clear terms. In that view of the matter, the stand of the respondents that the petitioners claim in the petition is required to be governed by Govt. Resolution dated 18.10.200 1 by giving retrospective effect, is liable to be rejected. 18. In view of above, having held that the terms of the Govt. Resolution dated 18.10.2001 have prospective effect, it will be in the fitness of the things that respondent no. 5 is directed to examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of clause 36 and the terms of Govt. Resolution dated 5.10.1976 for the purpose of assessment of the running bill/final bill qua the payment of royalty made by the petitioners. If the respondents are of the opinion that under clause 36 of the contract document, the petitioners are entitled for any refund, the same shall be processed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in that regard. 19. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.