As per case facts, a Notification issued by the Central Government in August 1991 increased royalty rates for coal. Writ petitioners, primarily coal consumers, challenged this Notification in the High ... Court, arguing that Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals Act, which enabled the increase, was unconstitutional due to excessive delegation of power and that the Notification itself was illegal and arbitrary as it was aimed at compensating states for prior cess invalidation rather than mineral development. The High Court quashed the Notification but denied refunds. The State and Union of India appealed against the quashing, while some consumers appealed seeking refunds.The question arose whether Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals Act was ultra vires the Constitution and whether the August 1991 Notification was beyond the scope of Section 9(3), a colourable exercise of power, or arbitrary and confiscatory in nature.Finally, the Supreme Court held that Section 9(3) was constitutionally valid and did not suffer from excessive delegation. It affirmed that royalty is a tax within Parliament's legislative competence under the Union List and that the power delegated to the Central Government for rate revision was guided by parliamentary oversight. The Court further ruled that the Notification was not ultra vires, colourable, arbitrary, or confiscatory, as compensating states for past revenue losses due to cess invalidation was a relevant consideration intrinsically linked to the larger goal of mineral development and ensuring uniform pricing. The Court found that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of the Notification being arbitrary or confiscatory. Thus, the High Court's decision to quash the Notification was set aside, and all associated writ petitions were dismissed.