ORDER : Prasanna B. Varale, J. 1. Petitioner, a Company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 now re-enacted in 2013, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the constitutionality of Clause (b) Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 on the ground of legislative incompetence in the light of Section 23-C of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19773/2018 (GM-MM-S) between M/S. MSPL LTD vs STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off on 21.04.2023 has quashed the impugned provision of the Rule and therefore the relief granted to the litigant therein needs to be extended to the Petitioner on the Rule of Parity. He draws our attention to the Legal Notice dated 03.06.2023 seeking parity in treatment. In the said Notice, a demand is made to the official Respondents to “stop collecting the difference of royalty charges at the plant level in compliance of law laid down by the Division Bench…”. Learned Principal Government Advocate on request having accepted notice for the Respondents unsuccessfully tried to resist the Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant relief to the Petitioner for the following reasons: a) The subject Rule has been struck down by a Co ordinate Bench of this Court in M/S. MSPL LTD., supra. The operative portion of the Judgement reads as under: “The Writ Petitions are allowed in part. The impugned Rule 4(10)(b) of the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 is unconstitutional. The same is declared as ultra vires and we strike down the said rule. We clarify with abundant caution that our striking down of the impugned Rule in the present judgment will not, in any manner, effect the royalty which was paid earlier.” A great Jurist of bygone era, Thomas M Cooley in his A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, 8th Edition, VOL.I, Page 382, succinctly states the effect of Court declaring a statutory provision as being unconstitutional: “Where a Statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if it had never been. Rights cannot be built up under it: contracts which depend upon it for their consideration are void; it constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. ‘And what is true of an act void in toto is true also as to any part of an act which is found to be unconstitutional and which consequently has to be regarded as having never at any time been possessed of any legal force…” b) The quashment of impugned Rule by the Constitutional Court ordinarily operates as a judgement in rem. In a traditional view as emerging from the survey of Rulings rendered under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there are only four jurisdictions wherein judgements operate in rem viz., (i) probate jurisdiction (ii) admiralty jurisdiction (iii) matrimonial jurisdiction & (iv) insolvency jurisdiction, say the sages of law like John Woodroffe & Amir Ali in their LAW OF EVIDENCE, 21st Edition LexisNexis page 1807. Although the term “judgement in rem” is not employed in the 1872 Act, the concept has been lucidly explained by Sir Barnes Peacock in KANHYA LALL vs RADHA CHURN, (1867) 7 WR 338. c) Under the English Law, a judgement in rem is broadly understood as an adjudication pronounced (as its very name denotes), upon the status of some particular subject-matter by a Court of competent jurisdiction for that purpose, and this pronouncement operates not only as res judicata i.e., binding inter parte but operates qua the world at large. This idea is founded as a matter of public policy for the peace of society as observed in ANJUMAN ISLAMIA vs LATAFAT ALI, AIR 1950 ALLAHABAD 109. To the above four species, another class of judgements rendered in constitutional jurisdiction needs to be recognized & added, as of necessity. When a Constitutional Court quashes a legislation or a delegated legislation, the operation of such quashment transcends the parties to the lis and operates as against all others, who were not parties eo nomine or persons claiming under them. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to the relief that has been granted to the litigant in the cognate case i.e., M/S. MSPL LTD, supra subject to the same limitation/reservation, in the absence of demonstrably derogative factors. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to the relief that has been granted to the litigant in the cognate case i.e., M/S. MSPL LTD, supra subject to the same limitation/reservation, in the absence of demonstrably derogative factors. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds. The Respondents are directed to extend to the Petitioner, the relief as granted to the litigant in M/S. MSPL LTD supra, with the same limitation/reservation as has been stated therein. Costs made easy.