Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : DEVENDER GUPTA, G.ROHINI
C.Narayana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-02-03
MINES AND MINERALS - MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES - RULE 9-W - VALIDITY - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE RULES FOR PREVENTING ILLEGAL MINING, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF MINERALS - SECTION 23-C OF THE MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957 - INTERPRETATION - RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENT OF EXCAVATED SAND - LEGALITY - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLES 301 TO 304 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 9-W of A. P. Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as inserted by G. O. Ms. No. 1, Industries and Commerce (M) Department, dated 1-1-2001, prohibiting the movement of sand across the border to the neighbouring State. They sought a declaration that the said Rule is invalid, inoperative and ultra vires the provisions of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and for a consequential direction to permit them to carry on quarrying operations without reference to the said Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that: 1. Rule 9-W of the Rules is intra vires the rule making power conferred under the Act. 2. The power of the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals cannot be extended to impose any restriction on movement of the excavated minor mineral. 3. Once the minor mineral is excavated and the required royalty and seignorage fee is paid, it becomes the property of the lessee. 4. The State Government has the power to frame rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals under Section 23-C of the Act. 5. The restrictions imposed on the movement of excavated sand are reasonable and in public interest. 6. The petitioners are estopped from questioning the legality and validity of the condition in Clause no. 8 (lll) of the mining lease, having voluntarily executed the lease deeds.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 9-W of A. P. Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 is valid? 2. Whether the State Government has the power to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals? 3. Whether the restrictions imposed on the movement of excavated sand are reasonable and in public interest? 4. Whether the petitioners are estopped from questioning the legality and validity of the condition in Clause no. 8 (lll) of the mining lease?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the State Government to make rules under Section 15 of the Act is only for regulating the grant of quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. 2. Section 23-C of the Act authorises the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minor minerals. 3. The restrictions imposed on the movement of excavated sand are reasonable and in public interest as they are intended to achieve the object of making available minor minerals within the State. 4. The petitioners are estopped from questioning the legality and validity of the condition in Clause no. 8 (lll) of the mining lease, having voluntarily executed the lease deeds.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) THE validity of Rule 9-W of A. P. Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as inserted by G. O. Ms. No. 1, Industries and Commerce (M) Department, dated 1-1-2001, is questioned in these two Writ Petitions. Hence they are heard together and decided by this common order.
( 2 ) SRI C. Narayana Reddy, Petitioner in w. P. No. 16710 of 2002 initially filed the writ petition, seeking to declare Rule 20 (e) of a. P. Panchayat Raj (Auction of Sand in the water Courses vesting in Gram Panchayat) rules, 2000 passed in G. O. Ms. No. 71, panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts. Ill) dated 29-2-2001 and Clause 8 (lll) of the Lease Agreement dated 29-7-2002 as invalid, inoperative and ultra vires the provisions of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and for a consequential direction to permit him to carry on quarrying operations without reference to the said Rules.
( 3 ) IT is relevant to note that by the date of filing of writ petition the auctioning of sand in water courses was governed by the Andhra pradesh Panchayat Raj (Auction of Sand in the Water Courses vesting in Gram panchayat) Rules, 2000 made under A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Sub-rule (e) of rule 20 of the said Rules prohibits transportation of sand outside the State. Hence the petitioner sought a declaration that the said Rule 20 (e), which is beyond the rule making power of the State Government is liable to be struck down. However, pending the writ petition, this court in Writ petition Nos. 6242 and 8255 of 2000 declared A. P. Panchayat Raj (Auction of sand in the water courses vesting in Gram panchayat) Rules, as ultra vires of the panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Thereafter, the state Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 1, industries and Commerce (M) Department, dated 1-1-2001 amending the A. P. Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1996 thereby substituting Rule 9-B to 9-X in place of the existing Rule 9-B. By virtue of the said amendment the grant of leases in respect of sand bearing areas in the State is governed by Rules 9-B to 9-X of A. P. Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1966 (for short "the rules" ). Rule 9-W of the Rules is in pan materia to Rule 20 (e) of the A. P. Panchayat (Auctions of Sand in the Water Courses vesting in Gram Panchayat) Rules, 2000 and prohibits the movement of sand across the border to the neighbouring State. In the circumstances, the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer in the main writ petition by challenging the validity of Rule 9-W of the rules by order dated 18-9-2002 in w. P. MP. No. 21641 of 2002.
( 4 ) IN the amended petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to declare Rule 9-W of the Rules and Clause 8 (lll) of the Lease agreement dated 29-7-2002 as invalid, inoperative and ultra vires of the Act and beyond the rule making power of the State government. Consequential relief prayed for is to permit him to carry on quarrying operations, stock and transport the excavated sand to neighbouring states from papangi River Reach of T. Sodam Gram panchayat of P. T. M. (Mandal), Chittoor district without reference to Rule 9-W of the rules and clause 8 (lll) of the lease agreement dated 29-7-2002.
( 5 ) MR. Y. Ramachandrarao, the petitioner in W. P. No. 17665 of 2003 has also prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring Rule 9-W of the Rules and the consequential condition imposed in Clause 8 (lll) of the Lease agreement dated 13-6-2062 to be arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of the provisions of the act and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to extend the lease period for the unexpired period of lease during which he allegedly was prevented from taking the sand to the neighbouring states.
( 6 ) FACTS in detail as alleged in w. P. No. 16710 of 2002 may be stated. The petitioner alleged that 5th respondent committee constituted under the Rules invited tenders to lift sand from Papagni river Reach of T. Sodam Gram Panchayat of PTM (Mandal ). The petitioner quoted the highe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
