In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners called in question the legality and validity of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000 (for short, the Rules) notified by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms. No.537, Industries and Commerce (M.I) Department, dated 11.10.2000.

2. The petitioners, most of whom are industrial units involved in the processing and pulverizing of mineral and some of them who are lessees to extract mineral such as Granite, Dolamite, White Shale, Lime Stone, steatite have mainly felt aggrieved by the definition of Mineral contained in Rule 2(1)(h) of the Rules as amended by G.O.Ms. No.330 dated 14.06.2001.

THE PETITIONERS CASE:-

3. The case of the petitioners in short is that the definition of Mineral, which enlarged the scope of mineral as defined in Section 3(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, the Act) is far beyond the delegated power of respondent No.1. The petitioners averred that by enlarging the scope of the definition of Mineral, the respondents have brought the processed minerals and the finished products within their regulatory control, which resulted in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

THE RESPONDENTS STAND:-

4. The Act as it stood before its amendment introduced with effect from 20.11.1999 contained Section 21, which provides for penalties for contravention of the rules made under the Act. The Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 framed by respondent No.1 contained Rule 26, which provides for penalties for unauthorized quarrying. These provisions were found insufficient to check the illicit mining, storage, transport and trading of the mineral. In order to take measures for arresting the illegal mining, transportation, storage and processing, the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, constituted a Committee to suggest necessary measures. On the recommendations of the Committee, several amendments were introduced to the Act to curb illicit mining. The amendments have been introduced with effect from 20.11.1999 by inserting certain provisions, which inter alia include Section 23-C. The said provision empowered the State Governments to make Rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. In exercise of its rule making power, the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the Rules, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2001. The main features of these Rules include bar on persons other than lease holder or a holder of Dealers Registration to stock, sell or offer for sale any minerals in any place except under Dealers Registration issued by the competent authority; to transport, carry by any means or cause to transport or carry any mineral from the places of raising or sell at any place without a valid permit. If these Rules are contravened, the mineral shall be liable to be seized along with whole equipment, vehicles etc., either at the mine head or in transit or point of storage or at the place of consumption. The main aim and objective of these Rules was to curb the illicit mining, transportation of minerals and to prevent the leakage of the mineral revenue to the State Exchequer and they have facilitated the dealers and processors to procure and trade minerals with the legal documents apart from getting free transit passes on production of valid proof of payment of royalty/seigniorage fee of raw/ processed mineral.

CONTENTIONS:-

5. Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy and Smt. N. Shoba, who advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the State Government, being a delegate, cannot add to, amend or vary in any manner the definition of Mineral contained in Section 3(a) of the Act. The expanded definition of the Mineral under the Rules resulted in bringing the processed mineral under the States regulatory control for the first time, which is far beyond the delegated powers of the State Government. In support of their contentions, the