ORDER : W.P.(C) No. 715/2024:- 1. We have two interim applications before us. One filed by the Union of India seeking extension of time to take an appropriate decision as directed by this Court in the main Judgment and the connected interim application is at the instance of the original petitioners pointing out that the directions issued by this Court in the main Judgment have not been complied with by the Union of India so far. 2. Today, when the mater was taken up for hearing, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India brought to our notice the events that have taken place after the Judgment was passed by this Court. 3. In Para 4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, the following has been stated:- "4. In view of the directions of this Hon'ble Court contained in the order dated 03.02.2025 in the instant matter, Respondent No. 1 humbly states and submits the details of action taken for compliance of the judgment dated 07.11.2024 as under: SL. NO. Date Action 1. 12.11.2024 The petitioner in the matter, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. sent a representation dated 12.11.2024 to this Ministry raising various grounds for applying the proposed rules for removing the impact of royalty on royalty for the existing auctioned leases also. 2. 14.11.2024 The Petitioner's representation was received on 14.11.2024. The same was examined in the Ministry of Mines. 3. 18.11.2024 The draft Note for the Union Cabinet for amendment in the rules was modified to include the details regarding the judgment dated 07.11.2024 of this Hon'ble Court and views of the Ministry of Mines. A Note was initiated for seeking examination and concurrence of the Department of Legal Affairs on the said draft Note for the Union Cabinet. Also, detailed comments on representation of the Petitioner were incorporated in the proposal sent to the Department of Legal Affairs. 4. 21.11.2024 The proposal was sent to the Department of Legal Affairs after approval in the Ministry of Mines. 5. 19.12.2024 The Department of Legal Affairs provided its opinion and concurrence on the proposal received by it from the Ministry of Mines. 6. 27.12.2024 The matter was examined in the Ministry of Mines and a clarification on the opinion was sought from the Department of Legal Affairs. 5. 19.12.2024 The Department of Legal Affairs provided its opinion and concurrence on the proposal received by it from the Ministry of Mines. 6. 27.12.2024 The matter was examined in the Ministry of Mines and a clarification on the opinion was sought from the Department of Legal Affairs. 7 07.01.2025 Application seeking extension of time period for compliance of judgment dated 07.11.2024 was filed by Respondent No. 01 8 07.01.2025 Concurrence of Department of Legal Affairs was received on the draft Note for the Cabinet. 9. 10.01.2025 The file was submitted for seeking the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Mines on the draft Note for the Cabinet. 10 04.02.2025 The final proposal has been, sent to the Cabinet Secretariat. This as per the prescribed procedure contained in Handbook on Writing Cabinet notes for handling a cabinet note. 4. In Para 3 of the affidavit, referred to above, the Union has stated as under:- "It is humbly submitted that the submissions as set out in application filed by the Respondent No. 1 seeking extension of time period for compliance of judgment dated 07.11.2024 may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and the same are not repeated herein for sake of brevity." 5. Now we look into the averments made in Para 9 of the application filed by the Union of India seeking extension of time to comply with the Judgment passed by this Court. Para 9 reads thus:- "That it is respectfully submitted that the process of public consultation has already been completed and the decision on the proposal is at the level of Union Cabinet. It is humbly submitted that the Respondent Ministry has made substantial compliance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court, but some more reasonable time would be required to take a final decisive call and accordingly, Respondent Ministry has moved an application dated 07.01.2025 seeking direction of this Hon'ble Court for extension of time" 6. Prima facie on plain reading of Para 9 above, it appears that the Union has reached the conclusion that it is not possible to implement the directions issued by this Court in the main Judgment. However, Mr. Madiyal appearing for the Union of India very fairly clarified that the averments made in Para 9 be ignored. 7. According to Mr. Prima facie on plain reading of Para 9 above, it appears that the Union has reached the conclusion that it is not possible to implement the directions issued by this Court in the main Judgment. However, Mr. Madiyal appearing for the Union of India very fairly clarified that the averments made in Para 9 be ignored. 7. According to Mr. Madiyal, the proposal has now reached before the Cabinet Secretariat for due implementation of the directions which have been issued by this Court in the main Judgment. 8. For the present, we once again remind the Union of India as to what has been said in the main Judgment. 9. Para 41 of the main Judgment, the following has been observed:- "41. Mr. Madiyal also contended that at the time of the auction of mining leases, the bids submitted are taking into consideration the existing legal regime, which includes Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 as well as the Explanation thereto, and the bidders are aware that royalty and auction premium is calculated on the basis of the sale value which is inclusive of the royalty and contributions to DMF and NMET of the previous month. He submitted that the revenue of a State comprises of the royalty collected from such mining leases. Changing the methodology of calculation of "sale value" by excluding the royalty payable for mining leases which have already been auctioned would therefore, result in loss of revenue to the States as estimated at the beginning of the auctioning process. It was submitted that it is important that the revenue of the state Governments should be protected". 10. From Para 74 onwards, this Court dealt with the issue on merits. We quote the relevant paragraphs, i.e., from 74 till 84:- "74.However, this Court in Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 193 while examining Rule 64B of the erstwhile MCR, 1960 has observed that the aforesaid rules were general in nature and applicable to types of minerals including coal. This Court rejected the categorization of coal on a different pedestal from other minerals under the MMDR Act for the purpose of levy of royalty. The relevant observations read as under: - "70. This Court rejected the categorization of coal on a different pedestal from other minerals under the MMDR Act for the purpose of levy of royalty. The relevant observations read as under: - "70. There is nothing to indicate in Rule 64-B and Rule 64-C of the MCR that coal has been put on a different pedestal from other minerals mentioned in the MMDR Act read with the Second Schedule thereto. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the view canvassed by the Union of India that these Rules "may not be particularly applicable on coal minerals". That apart, the stand of the Union of India is not definite or categorical ("may not be"). In any event, we are not bound to accept the interpretation given by the Union of India to Rule 64-B and Rule 64-C of the MCR as excluding only coal. On the contrary, in NMDC [National Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. State of M.P., (2004) 6 SCC 281 ] this Court has observed that these Rules are general in nature, applicable to all types of minerals, which includes coal. The expression of opinion by the Union of India is contrary to the observations of this Court. 71. Therefore, on a plain reading of Rule 64-B and Rule 64-C of the MCR, we are of the opinion that with effect from 25-9-2000 when these Rules were inserted in the MCR, royalty is payable on all minerals including coal at the stage mentioned in these Rules, that is, on removal of the mineral from the boundaries of the leased area. For the period prior to that, the law laid down in Central Coalfields Ltd. [Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand, Civil Appeal No. 8395 of 2001 decided by three learned Judges on 24-9-2003. Ed.: Now reported at (2015) 6 SCC 220 .] will operate, as far as coal is concerned, from 10-8-1998 when SAIL [State of Orissa v. SAIL, (1998) 6 SCC 476 ] was decided, though for different reasons." (Emphasis supplied) 75 .Even the respondents herein appear to have acknowledged that the differing mechanism for computation of royalty for coal and other minerals is not based on any fine distinction between the two, but rather an anomaly in the MCR. 76 . 76 . In view of the fact that the appropriate authorities are actively considering the issue of compounding royalties in the computation of average sale price for all other minerals, and the fact that a notice for public consultation on amending the MMDR Act to inter-alia address the aforementioned issue, we may not say anything further as regards whether the Explanation(s) to Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 and Rule 45 of the MCDR, 2017 are manifestly arbitrary or not. Although, the computation of royalty for different minerals is purely a matter of policy yet we should not just shut our eyes to the prima-facie anomaly that exists both in the very computation mechanism of average sale price for minerals in terms of the aforesaid provisions and the perplexing stance of exclusion of only coal from such mechanism despite the general nature and application of the aforesaid rules. 77 .However, we intend to grant one last opportunity to the respondents herein to seriously consider the mechanism of computation of average sale for the purposes of determining the rate of royalty for all other minerals in terms of the Explanation(s) to Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 and Rule 45 of the MCDR, 2017. We direct the respondents to conclude the process of public consultation in respect of the compounding of royalties and take a well-meaning decision keeping in mind the representations made by the petitioners herein. 78 . We may remind the respondents that, it cannot continue to keep the aforesaid issue in limbo on the pretext of ongoing process of public consultation process. In this regard, we may refer to the decision in State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., reported in (2023) 10 SCC 634 , wherein the following observations of this Court are significant: - "50. It is one thing for the State to assert that the writ petitioner had no vested right but quite another for the State to assert that it is not duty-bound to disclose its reasons for not giving effect to the exemption notification within the period that was envisaged in the Industrial Policy, 2012. Both the accountability of the State and the solemn obligation which it undertook in terms of the policy document militate against accepting such a notion of State power. The State must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Both the accountability of the State and the solemn obligation which it undertook in terms of the policy document militate against accepting such a notion of State power. The State must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the State will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary State action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the entitlement of private citizens and private business must be proportional to a requirement grounded in public interest. This conception of State power has been recognised by this Court in a consistent line of decisions. As an illustration, we would like to extract this Court's observations in National Buildings Construction Corpn. [National Buildings Construction Corpn. vs. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1770]: (SCC p. 75, para 18) "18 The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. (Emphasis supplied) 79 .We may also remind the respondents of one another decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 wherein it was held that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standard by which it professes its actions to be judged. The relevant observations read as under:- "10. [...] It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. [...]" (Emphasis supplied) 80. Once the respondents have themselves initiated a public consultation process for amending the MMDR Act to interalia address the aforementioned anomaly in computation of royalty, they must take a prompt decision in this regard. [...]" (Emphasis supplied) 80. Once the respondents have themselves initiated a public consultation process for amending the MMDR Act to interalia address the aforementioned anomaly in computation of royalty, they must take a prompt decision in this regard. Merely because it has the discretion to take such policy decision does not mean that it can endlessly keep on prolonging the decision-making process whereby the very discretion is rendered ad-lib and the issue in itself a forgone conclusion. 81. Before, we close this matter, we must make a reference to the decision in Narottam Kishore Deb Varman vs. Union of India, reported in (1964) 7 SCR 55 wherein this Court was called upon to decide a batch of petitions challenging the validity of Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the said decision, although this Court stopped short from holding the provision as unconstitutional yet it called upon the government to examine is the provision was to be allowed to continue for all times to come. It further observed that the considerations on which the validity of the provision is founded will wear out with the passage of time and may later become open to a serious challenge. The relevant observations read as under: - "11. Before we part with this matter, however, we would like to invite the Central Government to consider seriously whether it is necessary to allow Section 87-B to operate prospectively for all time. The agreements made with the Rulers of Indian States may, no doubt, have to be accepted and the assurances given to them may have to be observed. But considered broadly in the light of the basic principle of the equality before law, it seems somewhat odd that Section 87-B should continue to operate for all time. For past dealings and transactions, protection may justifiably be given to Rulers of former Indian States; but the Central Government may examine the question as to whether for transactions subsequent to 26th of January, 1950, this protection need or should be continued. If under the Constitution all citizens are equal, it may be desirable to confine the operation of Section 87- B to past transactions and not to perpetuate the anomaly of the distinction between the rest of the citizens and Rulers of former Indian States. If under the Constitution all citizens are equal, it may be desirable to confine the operation of Section 87- B to past transactions and not to perpetuate the anomaly of the distinction between the rest of the citizens and Rulers of former Indian States. With the passage of time, the validity of historical considerations on which Section 87-B is founded will wear out and the continuance of the said section in the Code of Civil Procedure may later be open to serious challenge. (Emphasis supplied) 82. Similarly in H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt., reported in (1979) 4 SCC 642 this Court was called upon to determine the constitutionality of application the Madras Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act to South Kana District. This Court observed that even after the passage of 23 years, no seric attempts were made to remove the inequality that was being caused in South Kanara District by the said Act. However, this Court while refraining itself from declaring the law as inapplicable, called upon the legislature look into the issue in the hope that it would act promptly, lest the said Act suffer a serious and successful challenge in the notso-distant future. The relevant observations read as under:- "31. But that is how the matter stands today. Twenty-three years have gone by since the States Reorganisation Act was passed but unhappily, no serious effort has been made by the State Legislature to introduce any legislation apart from two abortive attempts in 1963 and 1977 - to remove the inequality between the temples and Mutts situated in the South Kanara Disrict and those situated in other areas of Karnataka. Inequality is so clearly writ large on the face of the impugned statute in its application to the district of South Kanara only, that it is perilously near the periphery of unconstitutionality. We have restrained ourselves from declaring the law as inapplicable to the district of South Kanara from today but we would like to make it clear that if the Karnataka Legislature does not act promptly and remove the inequality arising out of the application of the Madras Act of 1951 to the district of South Kanara only, the Act will have to suffer a serious and successful challenge in the not distant future. We do hope that the Government of Karnataka will act promptly and move an appropriate legislation, say, within a year or so. A comprehensive legislation which will apply to all temples and Mutts in Karnataka, which are equally situated in the context of the levy of fee, may perhaps afford a satisfactory solution to the problem. This, however, is a tentative view-point because we have not investigated whether the Madras Act of 1951, particularly Section 76(1) thereof, is a piece of hostile legislation of the kind that would involve the violation of Article 14. Facts in regard thereto may have to be explored, if and when ccasion arises. (Emphasis supplied) 83. In view of the decisions referred to above, we may only say that since the respondents herein are already in seisin of the anomaly in computation of royalty and the policy is being reconsidered on the grounds raised by the petitioners herein, we do not say anything further as regards the provisions in question other than what we have observed. We clarify that this decision shall not preclude the petitioners from challenging the final policy decision that the respondents may take on completion of the ongoing consultation process. F. CONCLUSION 84. In view of the aforesaid, we grant the respondents a period of 2-months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment to conclude the public consultation process undertaken for amending the MMDR Act initiated pursuant to the Notice dated 25.05.2022 and take a final decisive call in regard to the cascading impact of royalty on royalty in the calculation of the 'average sale price' by virtue of the Explanation(s) to Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 and Rule 45 of the MCDR, 2017." 11. Thus, what is important for the Union of India to seriously consider in line with the judgment of this Court referred to above is the cascading impact of royalty on royalty in the calculation of the "average sale price" by virtue of the Explanation(s) to Rule 38 of the MCR 2016 and Rule 45 of the MCDR Rule, 2017 respectively. 12. Although in the main Judgment, the challenge to the validity of the two provisions, referred to above, on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary failed, yet this Court made it abundantly clear that there is a cascading effect of royalty on royalty and the Union must take this into consideration very seriously. 13. 12. Although in the main Judgment, the challenge to the validity of the two provisions, referred to above, on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary failed, yet this Court made it abundantly clear that there is a cascading effect of royalty on royalty and the Union must take this into consideration very seriously. 13. Actually, what prompted this Court to observe as regards the cascading effect in the main Judgment is the stance of the Union itself that they on their own are looking into this issue as there is a cascading effect of royalty on royalty. There are serious financial implications involved in this because of the cascading effect. 14. In such circumstances, referred to above, there is no problem in granting some further time to the Union provided it is looking into the matter seriously in its true perspective keeping in mind what has been observed by this Court in the main Judgment. 15. We hope and trust that an appropriate decision is taken at the highest level in accordance with what has fallen from this Court in the main Judgment. 16. For the present, we grant one month time to the Union of India to place before us an appropriate report or the final decision that may be taken. 17. At this stage, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned Senior counsel invited the attention of this Court to the averments made in Para 5 of the affidavit filed by the Union of India dated 21-2-2025. The same reads thus:- "It is respectfully submitted that when the public consultation for amendment of the MMDR Act was done in 2022, the proposal was to make the amended rules applicable to all mining leases, i.e. whether auctioned/granted before or after the commencement of the proposed amendment. The consultation was done with the various Ministries / Departments of the Central Government, State Governments and public/stakeholders. The said proposal was disagreed by the Ministry of Finance and major mineral rich States such as Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, interalia, on the grounds that it will cause loss of revenue to the States and also amount to post award change in tender conditions. 18. Although it has been stated in para 5 that the proposal has been rejected by the Ministry of Finance and major mineral rich States like Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, etc. 18. Although it has been stated in para 5 that the proposal has been rejected by the Ministry of Finance and major mineral rich States like Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, etc. on the ground that it may cause loss of revenue to the States and also amount to post award change in tender conditions, yet Mr. Madiyal submitted that the issue is very much in active consideration, keeping in mind what has fallen from this Court in the main Judgment. 19. List after five weeks.