The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between substantive and procedural rules, and the presumption of prospective application of statutes unless explicitly provided otherwise. The judgment clarified that even in procedural statutes, certain provisions may be substantive in nature and cannot be given retrospective effect.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted.

2. The short question of law which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether amended Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "1959 Rules"), which was amended by G.O.Ms.No. 391 dated 17.11.2000, would have retrospective effect or will become operational prospectively i.e. only from 17.11.2000. The issue has arisen in the following context:

3. In all these appeals the respondents were granted stone quarrying leases for a particular area some time in the year 1997. At that time, as per amended Rule 8(8) of 1959 Rules, lease could be granted for a period of five years initially and thereafter it could be renewed by another five years. On the basis of this Rule, the respondents herein in all these appeals were given the leases for a period of five years. However, when these leases were still in operation and the said period of five years for which these leases were granted had not expired, Rule came to be amended vide G.O. dated 17.11.2000. The amended rule provided that the period for quarrying stone in respect of virgin areas, which had not been subjected to quarrying earlier, shall be ten years whereas the period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of other areas shall be five years. On the basis of this amendment, these respondents pleaded that since they were granted lease for quarrying stone in respect of virgin areas, amended provision was made applicable in their cases and they were entitled to continue on lease for a period of ten years.

4. It is in this scenario that the question arose as to whether the aforesaid Rule can be made available even in respect of the leases which were granted before 17.11.2000. We may point out at this stage itself that the High Court has decided the issue in favour of the respondents holding that the aforesaid Rule deals only with the procedures to be adopted by the District Collector from the stage he invited tenders till he executed the lease deed which is not substantive in nature and therefore would apply even in those cases where leases were earlier but were continuing on the date when the amended Rule came into force. This decision contained in impugned judgment dated 23.04.2008 is questioned by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District in the State of Tamil Nadu in these appeals.

5. In order to have a better and clear understanding of the issue, the seminal facts need to be traversed. They are culled out from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3674 of 2010 and are as follows:

6. A notification dated 09.10.1996 was published by the appellant inviting applications for grant of stone quarrying in Survey No.99 (Part) quarry No.5 for an extent of 5.00.0 hectares in Karapakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk. This notification was issued under the provisions of Rule 8(8) of the 1959 Rules and it was stated therein that lease would be granted for a period of five years. Applications were thus invited for grant of ordinary stone quarrying lease for a period of five years i.e. from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001. Many persons including respondents herein submitted their applications pursuant to the aforesaid notification. A public auction was conducted on 13.05.1997 in which the respondent emerged as the highest bidder who submitted his bid in the sum of Rs. 5,35,000/- for a period of five years. His bid was accepted by the Collector vide his communication dated 05.06.1997 and on the very same date lease deed was executed for a period of five years that is from 05.06.1997 to 04.06.2002.

7. While the aforesaid lease was subsisting, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.391 dated 17.11.2000 thereby incorporating amendment to Rule 8 of the 1959 Rules and stipulating that the period of lease for quarrying stone in respect of virgin areas which have not been subjected to quarrying so far shall be ten years. The amended Rule reads as under:

"8. Leasing of lands for quarrying minor minerals other