important point
There is no power conferred upon the State Government to exercise control over minor minerals after they have been excavated.

judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the Original Petition filed.

2.Background facts as projected by the appellants in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellants are engaged in the business of limeshell. They have been holding the necessary dealers’ licence issued under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Rules’) under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (in short the Rules). The appellants were given the licence under Rule 48-C of the State Rules. As per the licence the appellants got the licence to sell stock and exhibit for sale minor minerals under the Rules. Along with the licence certain conditions have also been laid down which the appellants are under obligation to comply with. When the appellants were not granted the renewal of licence for the period 1997-98, they approached the High Court by filing O.P.No.14269/1997 which was disposed of by judgment dated 16.2.1998. The appellants filed a Writ Appeal against the said judgment and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.547/1998 directed the first respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants were granted renewal of their licences for the period 1998-99.

3.The appellants’ complaint is that certain conditions in the form of restrictions have been. incorporated while issuing the licences. One of such conditions which the appellants attacks is that the minerals permitted to be stocked were to be purchased only from authorised quarrying permit holders on that behalf. Another condition is that they are permitted to sell the minerals only within the State of Kerala that too for domestic and agricultural purposes. The appellants’ complaint is that as far as Co-operative Societies are concerned, they are not saddled with any such restrictions imposed in the case of the appellants. Thus, according to the appellants, there is a clear discrimination between the Co-operative Societies and the individuals in. the matter of restrictions imposed in the licences granted to them. Apart from that there is no legal sanction for such restrictions.

4.Learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that the licence was granted subject to certain conditions and restrictions. The State Government was empowered to impose such conditions under the Act and the State Rules and the licences were issued in terms of provisions of the Act and the State Rules. Since the conditional licence was issued, the licencees cannot take up the benefit of licences without the conditions imposed.

5.The Division Bench in writ appeal did not specifically refer to these aspects.

6.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the condition that sales would be for agricultural purposes and inside the State condition cannot be imposed under the Rules.

7.Learned counsel for the State Government and its functionaries on the other hand supported the order of the High Court.

8.It appears that the impugned conditions stipulated run as follows:

“While selling limeshell or the products made using the minerals you should give to the purchaser Cash memorandum authenticated by the undersigned/Assistant Geologist of this office before use. Please note that any consignment of minor minerals without a valid cash memorandum shall be considered as illicit and the competent authority or such authorized person may recover the mineral from the person concerned.”

9.It is to be noted that there is no serious challenge to the Condition No.1.

10.Similarly another condition was imposed which read as follows:

“For sale within Kerala State only for domestic and Agricultural purpose.”

11.Primarily it has been contended that no