HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28210 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. (Per Arindam Sinha, J.) 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 17th February, 2026 passed by respondent no. 5 (the Additional District Magistrate) demanding enhanced rate of royalty. Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the authority acted in excess of the powers. Her client obtained the mining lease for period of 10 years by successfully bidding at Rs. 112/- per cubic meter against reserved price of Rs. 110/- per cubic meter, on mining area duly declared under rule 23(1) in chapter IV of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. Impugned order, therefore, be interfered with inasmuch as it goes against terms of the contract made upon her client having been successful bidder in the e-auction. Provision for amount payable on royalty upon grant of lease is as per rule 28(ii). Impugned order purporting to be in pursuance of notification dated 4th February, 2026, amending the rules, cannot be relied upon to demand the increase in rate of royalty. There be interference to quash and set aside impugned order. 2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears for State. He submits, impugned order was duly made pursuant to amendment in the rules by said notification dated 4th February, 2026. Serial no. 4(v)(b) of the table given in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Amod Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the notification provides for increase of the rate of royalty from Rs., 110/- per cubic meter to Rs. 140/- per cubic meter. On earlier prevailing prescribed rate of royalty at Rs. 110/- per cubic meter, petitioner had bid Rs. 112/- per cubic meter to obtain the lease. He refers to rule 28(iii) for same allowing for the increase after commencement of the lease. 3. He relies on judgement dated 13th July, 2026 of the Supreme Court in, inter-alia, Civil Appeal no. 8830 of 2026 (The State of Haryana and Ors. vs. M/S Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals and Anr.), paragraphs 18 and 21. He submits, paragraph 18 contains issues framed for consideration of the Court, of which issue no. (I) stands answered in paragraph 21. 4. Contention of petitioner regarding sanctity of e-auction and pursuant thereto the mining lease granted on rate of royalty, relying on rule 23(3), cannot be sustained against contention of State to enforce the increase in royalty, relying on rule 28(2)(iii). Rule 23(3) is reproduced below. "23. Declaration of area for e-tender/e-auction/e-tender- cum-e-auction lease- ..................... (3) On the declaration of the area of the area under sub-rule (1) the provisions of Chapters II, III, VI and IX except Rules 10, 17 and 95 shall not apply to the area or areas in respect of which the declaration has been issued. Such area or areas may be leased out according to the procedure described in this chapter. ....................." It will appear from above quoted sub-rule that on declaration of the area under sub-rule (1), provisions in several chapters have been excluded from application but chapter IV, under which the rule falls, has not been itself excluded. In chapter IV falls rule 28, in which State is relying on sub-rule 2(iii). Said rule 28(2)(iii) is reproduced below. "28. Grant of Lease- WRIC No. 28210 of 2026 2 ..................... (2)(iii) for the subsequent years the amount payable will be increased at the rate of ten percent on the preceding year's payable amount, except in case of in-situ rocks; Provided that for in-situ rocks minerals the amount payable for the first ten years shall be the bid rate or the royalty rate specified in the rules from time to time, whichever is higher ; Provided further that amount payable will be increased by twenty-five percent in every 10 years but in subsequent years the amount payable will not be less than the royalty rate specified in the rules:" ......................." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, State is empowered by the chapter in the rules, on which petitioner relies, to require petitioner to pay the enhanced rate of royalty. 5. 5. In view of aforesaid, M/S Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals (supra) does not come to aid of State's contention. Relied upon issue framed in paragraph 18 is reproduced below. "18. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, the following issues arises for our consideration; I. Whether, in the absence of any stipulation in the lease deed subjecting the lease to statutory rules )providing for fluctuating or revised rates of royalty and dead rent), the State was precluded from enhancing the rate of royalty after execution of such deed? ............................" We reproduce below paragraphs 21 and 22 carrying answer to the issue, in law. It is of instruction regarding source of power, contractual and sovereign. "21. Does a statutory contract entered into by and between the Government of a State (lessor) and a private party WRIC No. 28210 of 2026 3 (lessee), containing various terms and conditions for regulation of mining in the leasehold area, forecloses the Government's right to exercise a statutory power which though otherwise available is not expressly mentioned in the contract? The answer to this question, ordinarily, would be in the negative. A contract cannot foreclose the Government from exercising a statutory power is the settled law. However, there is an exception, i.e., if the statute itself allows contracting out of that power and giving up that statutory power by the Government is a part of the agreed terms of the contract. 22. The reason seems to be this. When Government enters into a contract, it can wear two hats. First, is the hat of a sovereign. Source of the power is a statute and the purpose of exercise of power would be to advance public good. Second, is the commercial/private hat where source of the power is derived only from the contract. No statute is involved and there is absence of any public regulatory element." 6. Challenge of petitioner thus fails. The writ petition is dismissed. September 28, 2026 sailesh WRIC No. 28210 of 2026 4 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad