JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:— We granted special leave and heard arguments on the limited question whether brickearth is a minor mineral within the meaning of that expression as defined in S. 3 (e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

2. The definition is as follows:

"Minor mineral means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral;"

In exercise of the power conferred by S. 3 (e) of the Act, the Central Government declared the following minerals to be minor minerals

"Boulder, Shingle, Chalcedony pebbles used for ball mill purposes only, limeshell kankar and limestone used for lime-burning, murrum, brick-earth, fullers earth, bentonite road metal, rehmatti, slate and shale when used for building material."

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that a substance had to be a mineral before it could be notified as a minor mineral pursuant to the power under S. 3 (e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. He urged that brick-earth was not a mineral and, therefore, it could not be notified a minor mineral.

4. We agree with the learned counsel that a substance must first be a mineral before it can be notified as a minor mineral pursuant to the power vested in the Central Government under S. 3 (e) of the Act. The question, therefore, is whether brick-earth is a mineral. The expression "Minor Mineral" as defined in S. 3 (e) includes ordinary clay and ordinary sand. If the expression "minor mineral" as defined in S. 3 (e) of the Act includes ordinary clay and ordinary sand, there is no reason why earth used for the purpose of making bricks should not be comprehended within the meaning of the words "any other mineral" which may be declared as a "minor mineral" by the Government. The word "mineral" is not a term of art. It is a word of common parlance, capable of a multiplicity of meanings depending upon the context. For example the word is occasionally used in a very wide sense to denote any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable. Sometimes it is used in a narrow sense to mean no more than precious metals like gold and silver. Again, the word "minerals" is often used to indicate substances obtained from underneath the surface of the earth by digging or quarrying. But this is not always so as pointed out by Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((1976) 3 SCR 869) where the learned Judge said (at p. 874 (of SCR)

"It was urged that the sand and gravel are deposited on the surface of the land and not under the surface of the soil and therefore they cannot be called minerals and equally so, any operation by which they are collected or gathered cannot properly be called a mining operation. It is in the first place wrong to assume that mines and minerals must always be sub-soil and that there can be no minerals on the surface of the earth. Such an assumption is contrary to informed experience. In any case, the definition of mining operations and minor minerals in S. 3 (d) and (e) of the Act of 1957 and R. 2 (5) and (7) of the Rules of 1963 shows that minerals need not be subterranean and that mining operations cover every operation undertaken for the purpose of "winning" any minor mineral, "Winning" does not imply a hazardous or perilous activity. The word simply means "extracting a mineral" and is used generally to indicate any activity by which a mineral is secured. "Extracting" in turn, means drawing out or obtaining. A tooth is extracted as much as is fruit juice and as much as a mineral. Only that the effort varies from tooth to tooth, from fruit to fruit and from mineral to mineral."

5. We may also refer to Northern Pacific Railway Company v. John A. Sedrbarg, (1902) 47 Law Ed 575), where the SC of United States observed as follows (at p. 581):

"