STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.versusRAMESH PRASAD VERMA (DEAD) THR. LRS.

                             [2017] 2 S.C.R. 342



A                       STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
                                      v.
            RAMESH PRASAD VERMA (DEAD) THR. LRS.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 1258of2017)
B                           JANUARY 31, 2017
              [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
            Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 - Bihar Minor
    Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 - r. 26 - Rent/royalty
    and assessment - Notification dated 24. 03.2001 whereby rate of
c   royalty for minerals used for making chips, was stipulated to be
    Rs. JOO/- per cubic 111ete1; on and from 01.04.2001 - Footnote to
    the effect that the identified areas thereof would be notified
    separately - Demand notices for the said period - Deposit of the
    said amount - Thereafter, notification dated 26.12.2001 identifYing
D   the areas wherefrom the minerals involved, if extracted would attract
    royalty - Challenge to, by respandents-dealing in minerals used
    for making chips - High Court held that once the areas were
    identified by Notification dated 26.12.2001, demand would relate
    back to 01.04.2001 - In appeal, Division Bench held that the
    realization of royalty at the higher rates, as fixed by Notification
E
    dated 24.03.2001, was not realizable from the date prior to
    26.12.2001 - On appeal, held: Having regard to the two
    Notifications and the footnote, the Notification dated 26.12.2001
    is only clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as it declares only the areas
    from which, if the minerals concerned are extracted would draw
F   the rate of royalty already fixed by Notification dated 24.03.2001,
    payable on and from 01.04.2001 - No other interpretation would
    accord with the legislative intendment contained in Rule 26 as well
    as the objectives of the two Notifications - Conjoint reading of
    Rule 26 and the two Notifications predicates that the enhanced rate
    of royalty at Rs. JOO/- per cubic meter for minerals, which are used
G
    or are capable of being used for making chips would be realizable
    w.e.f 01.04.2001 and axiomatically thus, the respondents are liable
    to discharge the demand, therefor, as raised in terms thereof - High
     Court erred in interpreting the relevant legal provisions and the
    Notification dated 26.12.2001 in particular in holding that the
H    enhanc.ed rates, as fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, would
                                       342
   STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA                            343
                  (DEAD) THR. LRS.

be payable for the minerals involved, as extracted from the two            A
areas, mentioned in the Notification dated 26.12.2001 on and from
that date - Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside.
       Interpretation of statutes - Restrospective operation - Held:
Any legislation or instrument having the force of law. if c/arificatory,
declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, in order to supply        B
an obvious omission or to clear up doubts qua any prior law,
retrospective operation thereof is generally intended.
       Allowing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The footnote to the Notification dated
24.03.2001, in clear terms, proclaims that the areas of the two             c
categories of the minerals, corresponding to SI. Nos.1 and 2
(boulder, gravel, shingle, which are used for making chips) once
identified, would be notified separately as per the Rules.
Eventually, such areas being located in the Districts of 'R' and
'B', having been identified by the Expert Committee constituted             D
for the purpose, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 followed. A
plain reading of this Notification would demonstrate, in
unambiguous terms, that it is in continuation of the one dated
24.03.2001 fixing the rate of royalty at Rs.100 per cubic meter
for boulder, gravel, shingle, from which chips is prepared. Though
it mentioned that the boulder, gravel and shingle found in the              E
Districts of 'R' and 'B' were fit and suitable for making stone
chips, albeit imputed by the respondents, there is in reality no
alteration in the description of the minerals so as to exclude those
extracted by them from the purview of this Notification or the
one dated 24.03.2001. The words "is" and "fit and suitable" for             F
making, in the attendant facts and circumstances, unmistakably
refer to boulder, gravel and shingle, which either are used for
making chips or are capable of making the same. [Para 15] [351-
B-E]
        1.2 lt is apparent from Rule 26, that when a lease is granted       G
or renewed, amongst others, royalty would be charged at the rate
specified in Schedule II and that the State Government may, by
notification in the official gazette, amend the First and Second
Schedules so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which rents/
royalty would be payable in respect of any minor Mineral w.e.f.
                                                                            H
344            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A     the elate of the publication of the notification in the official gazette.
      Though it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the
      mandate contained in sub-rule 5 of Rule 26 authorizing the State
      Government to enhance or reduce the rate of rents/royalties,
      has to be construed to make such enhancement or reduction
      effective essentially on and from the elate of the publication of
B
      the notification in the Official Gazette to that effect, the plea cannot
      be accepted vis-a-vis the Notification elated 26.12.2001 in its
      operation. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the Rules
      and, in particular the two Notifications in hand and most
      importantly the footnote to the one elated 24.03.2001, the
c     Notification elated 26.12.2001 is only clarificatory in nature,
      inasmuch as it declares only the areas from which, if the minerals
      concerned are extracted, would draw the rate of royalty already
      fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, payable on and from
      01.04.2001. No other interpretation would accord with the
      legislative intendment contained in Rule 26 as well as the
D
      objectives of the two Notifications. [Paras 16, 17] [351-E-H; 352-
      A-B]

             1.3 Delegated legislation cannot traverse beyond the
      contours of the authority endowed by the parent statute and unless
      authorized by it, is not empowered to make any law or provision
E
      with retrospective effect, impairing the already vested rights of
      those likely to be adversely affected thereby. [Para 18] [352-C-
      D]
               1.4 Any legislation or instrument having the force of law,
      if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport,
 F
      in order to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts qua
      any prior law, retrospective operation thereof is generally
      intended. Applying this test, in absence of any indication to the
      contrary, either in the parent Act or the Rules or the Notifications
      involved, a conjoint reading of Rule 26 and the two Notifications,
G     manifest that, the enhanced rate of royalty at Rs.100/- per cubic
      meter for boulder, gravel and shingle, which are used or are
      capable of being used for making chips would be realizable w.e.f.
      01.04.2001 and axiomatically thus, the respondents are liable to
      discharge the demand, therefor, as raised in terms thereof. The
      respondents were fully aware of the amended rate of Rs. 100/-
H
   STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA                      345
                  (DEAD) THR. LRS.

per cubic metre for the minerals extracted by them and thus, the     A
reasoning of the High Court that they might not have passed on
the burden to their purchasers is without any factual basis and
being clearly speculative is untenable. The High Court erred in
interpreting the relevant legal provisions and the Notification
dated 26.12.2001 in particular in holding that the enhanced rates,
                                                                      B
as fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, would be payable
for the minerals involved, as extracted from the two areas,
mentioned in the Notification dated 26.12.2001 on and from that
date. The determination made by the High Court is thus,
indefensible and consequently, the impugned decision is set aside.
[Para 21] (353-E-H; 354-A-B]                                          c
       The Income Tax Officer, A//eppy v. MC. Ponnoose and
       others etc. (1969) 2 SCC 351 : (1970] 1 SCR 678;
       Hukam Chand Etc. v. Union of India and others (1972)
       2 SCC 601 : (1973] 1 SCR 896; Co111111issio11er of
       Income Tax v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.           D
       (1988) 3 SCC 553 : (1988] 3 SCR 1034; Bejgam
       Veeranna Venkata Narasimloo and others v. State of
       A.P. and others (1998) 1 SCC 563 : [1997] 5 Snppl.
       SCR 389; Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin
       Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 622 : (2008] 12             E
       SCR 179; Zile Singh 1( State of Haryana & Ors. AIR
       2004 SC 5100 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272 - referred
       to.
       "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" by Justice GP
       Singh 11th Edn 2008- referred to.                              F

                      Case Law Reference

11?70] 1 SCR 678               referred to            Para 14
11?73] 1 SCR 896               referred to            Para 14
                                                                      G
[1988] 3 SCR 1034              referred to            Para 14
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 389        referred to            Para 14
[2008] 12 SCR 179              referred to            Para 19
 [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272       referred to            Para 20
                                                                      H
346            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1258 of2017.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2009 of the High
      Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 793 of2002
                                       WITH

B             C. A. No. 1259 of2017.
             Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Advitiya Awasthi, Advs. for the
      Appellants.                         '
             Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar, Santosh Mishra, Alok
      Kumar, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Ms. Prerna Singh, Prashant Kumar, Priya
C     Ranjan Rai, T. Mahi pal, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. Leave Granted.
              2. Vexed by the determination thereby limiting the application of
D     the Notification SS-2/MM-l l /2001-2361 .. ./M dated 26.12.2001 to the
      date of issuance thereof, for the purpose of realizing royalty in respect
      of the minerals mentioned therein @Rs. I 00/- per cubic meter, otherwise
      prescribed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001 notifying the Bihar Minor
      Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001, the State of Bihar and
      its concerned functionaries are in appeal seeking redress. The impugned
E
      judgment and order dated 21.08.2009 is common in both the appeals and
      consequently, marginal variation in the contextual facts notwithstanding,
      the legal issues raised are the same, permitting analogous disposal of the
      proceedings in hand.
              3. We have heard Mr. Gopal Singh learned counsel for the
F     appellants· and Mr. Sun ii Kumar, learned counsel and Mr. Nagendra Rai,
      learned senior counsel for the respondents in appeals corresponding to
      S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3652 of2010 and 3653 of2010 respectively.
              4. The facts, as construed to be germane for the adjudication,
      fall in a short compass and for the sake of brevity and convenience
G     would be lifted from the appeal corresponding to SLP(C) No.3652 of
      2010. To reiterate, nothing turns on the facts with fringe differences in
      the two appeals and in course of the arguments as well, no marked
      distinguishable features have been highlighted warranting individual
      analysis thereof.
H
      STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA                                347
             (DEAD) THR. LRS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

        5. The respondent had been granted a lease for I 0 years from             A
the year 1992 under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and on the expiry of the term
thereof, the same had not been renewed. The lease had been accorded
to win pebbles (gutika) from the ·basin of Pandai river. The rate of
royalty, as was fixed by the Notification dated 17.08.1991 initially at the
                                                                                   B
commencement of the lease, stood revised thereafter on 29.08.1994.
Eventually, by the aforementioned Notification dated 24.03.2001 ushering
in the amendment to the Rules, amongst others the rate of royalty for
"boulder, gravel, shingles, which is used for making chips", was prescribed
to be Rs. I 00/- per cubic meter. The relevant excerpt from Schedule II
to the Rules qua the above Minerals is extracted herein below for ready            c
reference:
                                    Royalty

 SI. No.           Name of the Minerals           Rate per cubic metre (in
                                                  rupees)
                                                                                   D
      1                       2                                3
 I.         Boulder, Gravel, Shingle                         50.00
 2.         Boulder, Gravel, Shingle which                  100.00
            used for making chips
                                                                                   E
           At the -foot of the Notification, the following note was attached :
           "Note: In respect of Minerals mentioned in SI. Nos.I and 2 the
           identified areas of the two categories of the said Minerals, shall
           be notified separately, as per rules.
                                                                                   F
           3. This order will come into force from 1.4.200 l ."
        It would be appropriate as well to quote at th is juncture, Rule 26
of the Rules pertaining to rent/royalty an assessment as herein below:
           "26. Rent/royalty and assessment - (I) When a lease is
           granted or renewed:-                                                    G
           (a) Dead rent shall be charged at the rates specified in Schedule I;
           (b) Royalty shall be charged at the rates specified in Schedule
           I!; and

                                                                                   H
348             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A             (c) Surface rent shall be charged at the rate specified by the
              Collector from time to time for the area occupied or used by the
              lessee.
              (2) On and from the d·ate of commencement of these rules, the
              provisions of sub-rule (I) shall also apply to the leases granted
B             or renewed prior to the date of such commencement and
              subsisting on such date.
              (3) If the lease permits the working of more than one Mineral in
              the same area, the Collector may charge separate dead rent in
              respect of each Mineral:
c             Provided that the lessee shall be liable to pay the dead rent or
              royalty in respect ofeach Mineral, whichever be higher in amount.
              (4) Notwithstanding any thing contained in any instrument of!ease
              the lessee shall pay rent/royalty in respect of any minor mineral
              own, extracted and removed at the rate specified from t;me to
D             time in Schedules I and II.
              (5) The State Government may, hy notification in the official
              Gazette, amend the first and second Schedules so as to enhance
              or reduce the rate at which rents/royalties shall be payable in
              respect of any minor Mineral with effect from the date of
E             publication of the notification in the official Gazette.
              (6) The (Competent Officer), after such enquiry and verification
              as he may deem necessary of the monthly returns furnished by
              the lessee in Form "H" shall assess the amount of rent/royalty
              payable by the lessee at the end of the prescribed period."

F             6. As would be evident from the Notification dated 24.03 .200 I,
      thereby the rate of royalty for boulder, gravel, shingle, which are used
      for making chips, though had been stipulated to be Rs. I 00/- per cubic
      meter, the footnote thereof clarified that the identified areas thereof would
      be notified separately as per the Rules. Otherwise, the rates were made
      effective on and from 01.04.2001. As the respondent was dealing in
G     boulder, gravel, shingle which are used for making chips, the adjudicate
      understandably would be limited to these minerals.
              7. Be that as it may, as the recorded facts demonstrate, demand
      notices dated 06.09.2001 and 29.11.2001 for the terms 01.04.2001 to
      July, 2001 and 01.07.2001 to October, 2001 for Rs. 28,80,079/- and
H
   STATE OF BlHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA                                 349
          (DEAD) THR. LRS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.)

Rs.16, 75,353/-, followed in response whereto, the appellant deposited           A
Rs.11 lakhs and Rs.8.5 lakhs correspondingly. At that stage, the
Notification dated 26.12.200 I adverted to hereinabove, was issued by
the Government ofBihar, Mines and Geological Department, to the effect
that boulder, gravel, shingle found in the Districts ofRohtas and Bettiah
are capable of being made into stone chips, for which the royalty would
                                                                                 B
be payable @ Rs. I 00/- per cubic meter, as fixed by the Notification
dated 24.03.2001 issued under Rule 26 of the Rules. The said
Notification mentioned that the districts mentioned therein had been
identified on the basis of a report of a team ofexperts constituted for the
purpose. Pleaded facts are available to the effect that the State
Government on 05 .05.2001 had indeed constituted an Expert Committee             c
to notify the areas in the basin of the Pandai river, wherefrom the above
minerals, if extracted, would attract the royalty@ofRs. I 00/- per cubic
meter, as ordained by the Notification dated 24.03.200 I.
        8. As with the issuance of the Notification dated 26.12.2001, the
royalty @ Rs.100/- per cubic meter for the minerals concerned was                D
sought to be realized by the State Government w.e.f 24.03.2001, the
respondents separately assailed the demand notices unsuccessfully
before the Departmental Appellate Authority, whereafter they laid the
impeachment thereto before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution oflndia.
                                                                                 E
        9. The learned Single Judge dismissed the impugnment observing
that once the areas were identified by the Notification dated 26.12.200 I,
the demand would relate back to 01.04.200 l.
        I 0. The respondents, as a consequence, carried the challenge in
appeal to the Division Bench, which upheld the same.                             F
         11. As the impugned verdict would reveal, the Division Bench
noticed that the respondents had not challenged the validity of the
notification dated 24.03.2001 and had confined their demurral only to
the retrospective application thereof, pursuant to the Notification dated
26.12.2001. The Division Bench held the view that once the rate of
                                                                                 G
royalty had been enhanced, as effected by the Notification dated
24.03.2001, it was incumbent on the part of the concerned authorities
also to notify the relevant areas therewith, so as to enable the lessees to
pass on the liability to the purchasers in the transactions to follow. As, in
absence of the identification of the areas by the Notification dated
                                                                                 H
350             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A     23.04.2001, there was a possibility that the higher rates of royalty would
      not be applicable to them, the respondents might not have passed on
      such liability in their contemporary transactions. It was thus concluded
      thatthe realization ofroyalty atthe higher rates, as fixed by the Notification
      dated 24.03.2001, was not realizable from the date prior to 26.12.2001.
B              12. Consequently, both the respondents, as held, were required
      to pay royalty at the rate fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001
      w.e.f. 26.12.2001, following necessary adjustments of the amounts already
      deposited by them.
               13. Whereas, the learned counsel for the appellant has
c     emphatically urged that thS' Notification dated 26. I 2.2001 is apparently
      clarificatory in nature and only identifies the areas wherefrom the minerals
      involved, if extracted would attract the rate of royalty otherwise fixed
      by the Notification dated 24.03.2001, and that the High Court has ex
      facie erred in its interpretation thereof, the impugned decision has been
      endorsed on behalf of the respondents by pleading that the Rules by
D     themselves being a delegated legislation, in absence ofany provi~ion in
      the parent statute authorizing realization of royalty with retrospective
      effect, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 cannot be given a retrospective
      effect on and from 24.3.2001 and thus, no interference by this Court is
      called for. The learned counsel for the respondents have contended further
E     that the Notification dated 26.12.2001 is even otherwise non est, as it
      seeks to alter as well the description of the minerals set out in Schedule
      II of the Notification dated 24.03.2001. Reliance on their behalf has
      been placed on the decisions of this Court in The Income Tax Officer,
      Alleppy vs. M. C. Po1111oose and others etc. ( 1969) 2 SCC 351, H ukam
      Chand Etc. vs. U11io11 of India and others ( 1972) 2 SCC 60 I,
F     Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar
      Factory Ltd. ( 1988)3 SCC 553, Bej1:am Veera11na Ve11kata
      Narasimloo and others vs. State of A.P. and others (1998) 1 SCC
      563.
              14. The materials available on record and the competing
G     assertions have received our due consideration. Admittedly, the
      Notification dated 24.03.2001 occasioning enhancement of the rate of
      royalty for boulder, gravel, shingle which are used for making chips and
      extracted by the respondents' firm from the basin of the Pandai river, is
      not under assailment by them. They have not questioned as well the
      enforcement of this notification w.e.f. 01.04.2001. As claimed by them,
H
   STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA                               351
          (DEAD) THR. LRS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

in response to the demand notices thereafter, they have made part              A
payments of the royalty claimed. They have unequivocally averred that
they deal in boulder, gravel, shingle, which are used for making chips.
         15. The footnote to the Notification dated 24.03.2001, in clear
terms, proclaims that the areas of the two categories of the minerals,
corresponding to SI. Nos.1 and 2 (boulder, gravel, shingle, which are          B
used for making chips) once identified, would be notified separately as
per the Rules. Eventually, such areas being located in the Districts of
Rohtas and Bettiah, having been identified by the Expert Committee
constituted forthe purpose, the Notification dated 26.12.2001 followed.
A plain reading of this Notification would demonstrate, in unambiguous
terms, that it is in continuation of the one dated 24.03.2001 fixing the       c
rate of royalty at Rs.100 per cubic meter for boulder, gravel, shingle,
from which chips is prepared. Though it mentioned that the boulder,
gravel and shingle found in the Districts ofRohtas and Bettiah were fit
and suitable for making stone chips, in our comprehension, though imputed
by the respondents, there is in reality no alteration in the description of    D
the minerals so as to exclude those extracted by them from the purview
of this Notification or the one dated 24.03.2001. The words "is" and "fit
and suitable" for making, in the attendant facts and circumstances,
unmistakably refer to boulder, gravel and shingle from which either are
used for making chips or are capable of making the same. The assertion
of the respondents to the contrary does not commend for acceptance             E
and is rt<iected.
         16. In Re Rule 26, it is apparent therefrom that when a lease is
granted or renewed, amongst others royalty would be charged at the
rate specified in Schedule II and that the State Government may, by
notification in the official gazette, amend the First and Second Schedules  F
so as to enhance or reduce the rate at which rents/ royalty would be
payable in respect of any minor Mineral w.e.f. the date of the publication
of the notification in the official gazette. Though it has been contended ·
on behalf of the respondents that the mandate contained in sub-rule 5 of
Rule 26 authorizing the State Government to enhance or reduce the rate G
of rents/royalties, has to be construed to make such enhancement or
reduction effective essentially on and from the date of the publication of
the notification in the Official Gazette to that effect, we are unable to
subscribe to this plea vis-a-vis the Notification dated 26.12.2001 in its
operation. In our estimate, having regard to the relevant provisions of
                                                                            H
352             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A     the Rules and, in particular the two Notifications in hand and most
      importantly the footnote to the one dated 24.03.2001, the Notification
      dated 26.12.2001 is only clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as it declares
      only the areas from which, if the minerals concerned are extracted would
      draw the rate of royalty already fixed by the Notification dated 24.03.2001,
      payable on and from 01.04.2001.
B
              17. No other interpretation would accord with the legislative
      intendment contained in Rule 26 as well as the objectives of the two
      Notifications.
               18. All the decisions cited at the Bar are to the effect that a
c     delegated legislation cannot traverse beyond the contours of the authority
      endowed by the parent statute and unless authorized by it, is not
      empowered to make any law or provision with retrospective effect,
      impairing the already vested rights of those likely to be adversely affected
      thereby. In our mind, these pronouncements, in the singular facts of the
      case are of no avail to the respondents having regard in particular to the
D     clarificatory nature of the Notification dated 26.12.2001.
             19. In Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad vs. Gold
      Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 622, a three-Judge Bench of
      this Court, while dwelling on the sweep of a clarificatory or declaratory
      legal provision, relied on the following extract from the celebrated treatise
E     "Principles of Statutory Interpretation", 11th Edition 2008 by
      Justice GP. Singh:
              "The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable
              to declaratory statutes. As stated in Craies and approved by the
              Supreme Court: For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be
F             defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common
              law, or the meaning or effect of any Statute. Such acts are
              usually held to be retrospective." ........
              ............ "An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an
              obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the
G             previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or
              merely declaratory of the previous law. retrospective operation
              is generally intended. The language 'shall be deemed always to
              have meant' or 'shall be deemed never to have included' is
              declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence
              of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it
H
   STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA                               353
          (DEAD) THR. LRS. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]

       would not be so construed when the amended provision was               A
       clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely
       clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal
       Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of
       this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the
       principal Act was existing law when the constitution came into
                                                                               B
       force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law."
       20. The following quote contained in Zile Singh vs, State of
Harya11a & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 5100, was also noted with approval:
       "14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not
       applicable to declaratory statutes .... In determining, therefore,      c
       the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather
       than to the form. !fa new Act is "to explain" an earlier Act. it
       would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An
       explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission
       or to clearup doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is
       well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of     D
       the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended ....
       An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning
       of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A
       clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective
       effect."
                                                                               E
        21. The proposition has been so well laid that we do not wish to
burden the present rendition by referring to other rulings in the same
vein. Suffice it to state that any legislation or instrument having the
force of law, if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and
purport, in order to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts qua
                                                                               F
any prior law, retrospective operation thereof is generally intended.
Applying this test, in absence of any indication to the contrary, either in
the parent Act or the Rules or the Notifications involved, we are thus of
                               a
the unhesitant opinion that on conjoint reading of Rule 26 and the two
Notifications, the enhanced rate of royalty at Rs. I 00/- per cubic meter
for boulder, gravel and shingle, which are used or are capable of being        G
used for making chips would be realizable w.e.f. 01.04.2001 and
axiomatically thus, the respondents are liable to discharge the demand,
therefor, as raised in terms thereof. The respondents were fully aware
of the amended rate of Rs. I 00/- per cubic metre for the minerals
extracted by them and thus the reasoning of the High Court that they
                                                                               H
354                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A     might not have passed on the burden to their purchasers is without any
      factual basis and being clearly speculative is untenable. The High Court,
      in our view, had clearly erred in interpreting the relevant legal provisions
      and the Notification dated 26.12.2001 in particular in holding that the
      enhanced rates, as fixed by the Notification dated 24.03 .200 I, wou Id be
      payable for the minerals involved, as extracted from the two areas,
B
      mentioned in the Notification dated 26.12.200 l on and from that date.
      The determination made by the High Court is thus indefensible and
      consequently, the impugned decision is hereby set aside.
               22. The appeals are thus allowed. No costs.

c
      Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeals allowed.