IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
Sh. Daljeet Singh Pathania, S/o Sh. Kushal Singh Pathania- appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2395 of 2020
Decided on : 05-01-2022
Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015 – Illegal mining- Transport and supply of mine minerals – Power of State - Contractors to transport and supply minor minerals to it, State-Public Works Department (State-PWD) forgot to ascertain whether source of such minor minerals was legal or not - Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015 (in short 2015 Rules) were given a go-bye - Having turned a blind eye to 2015 Rules, State-PWD now contests the writ petition seeking enforcement of these Rules by contending that there is a lacuna in 2015 Rules inasmuch as under these Rules, source of transported minor minerals could be determined only during transit of minor minerals and not after the minerals reach their destination - Minor minerals now having reached department/destination, no action penal or otherwise can be taken against contractors as 2015 Rules do not empower State to determine source of minerals after minerals reach site and are used - State is now helpless and cannot determine source of transported/supplied minor minerals - Whether State has power to make rules for regulating transport of minor minerals ? - Whether 2015 Rules suffer from any lacuna as contended by State PWD and, cannot be enforced upon contractors ?.
Finding of the Court:
It will also be profitable to refer to stand of Industries department to writ petition - According to Industries department, any consignment of minor minerals transported to some other destination, if not used for captive purpose near source of generation of mineral for which specific permission is granted by Industries department, then such consignment should be supported by transit pass in Form W/X duly countersigned by concerned mining officer or any authorized officer to ascertain that mineral is royalty paid and has been brought from legal source - No justification is there as to why concerned departments did not follow mandatory provisions of 2015 Rules while the mineral was being transported - Clearing GST paid bills of contractors after charging royalty is not an evidence of legal source of mineral - Illegally extracted mineral after transportation on payment of royalty will not become legal – In case minor mineral generated at the worksite etc. is intended to be used at the worksite without transporting the mineral, then the concerned officials will ensure due compliance of Rule 33 and other applicable provisions of 2015 Rules before allowing such use-In case the authorized officials detect transport of minor mineral in violation of 2015 Rules, prompt action in accordance with 2015 Rules shall be taken against the offenders. Responsibility and accountability of concerned officials shall also be fixed in case of omission to ensure compliance of the Rules. - No bill of the contractor for transport/supply of the minor mineral, which in terms of 2015 Rules is required to be carried with transit passes etc. shall be cleared by any State department/authority unless it is accompanied by transit pass-Form W/X etc. duly issued by the competent authority.
Result: Writ petition disposed off
ORDER :
1. ‘A bad workman quarrels with his tools’, the saying aptly applies to the stand taken by the State in the instant case to justify omission of its officials for not ensuring compliance to the Statute and the Rules framed thereunder.
2. While allowing certain contractors to transport and supply minor minerals to it, the State-Public Works Department (State-PWD) forgot to ascertain whether the source of such minor minerals was legal or not. The Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015 (in short 2015 Rules) were given a go-bye. Having turned a blind eye to the 2015 Rules, the State-PWD now contests the writ petition seeking enforcement of these Rules by contending that there is a lacuna in 2015 Rules inasmuch as under these Rules, source of transported minor minerals could be determined only during transit of minor minerals and not after the minerals reach their destination. The minor minerals now having reached the department/destination, no action penal or otherwise can be taken against the contractors as 2015 Rules do not empower the State to determine source of minerals after the minerals reach the site and are used. The State is now helpless and cannot determine source of transported/supplied minor minerals. In terms of its contractual obligations, the State-PWD is liable to release pending bills of contractors irrespective of legal or illegal source of minor minerals supplied by them. The State-PWD, therefore, has prayed for vacation of interim order dated 16.07.2020 which restrained the State from clearing the bills of contractors, who had failed to produce the transit pass in Form-W or Supplementary pass in Form-X. 2.
2. The petitioner alleges in the writ petition that :-
2(i) Various development activities in the State, like construction of roads, buildings, power projects etc. are being executed through private contractors/companies. These contractors/companies carry out rampant, illegal and indiscriminate mining and transport/supply minor minerals to the State Government. Bills for the minor minerals are submitted by the contractors without disclosing legal source of minor minerals like sand, bajri, stone, gravel and boulders etc. The State departments clear such bills without asking the contractors to produce transport/other mining permits mandatorily required under the 2015 Rules.
2(ii) The State departments only charge royalty on the transported minor minerals without asking the contractors to show legal source of minerals. The contractors purchase the illegally extracted minor minerals on cheap rates. Such illegal operations cause huge financial loss to the public exchequer.
2(iii) The State has framed 2015 Rules to prevent illegal mining/transport/storage of minor minerals. Despite existence of deterrent provisions in these Rules, the State has not imposed any restriction on the contractors. The contractors with impunity do not produce transit passes Form-W/X, permits required under the 2015 Rules. The State does not insist upon production of such permits, resultantly illegally extracted minor minerals get transported and supplied without any check. This also causes loss to the State exchequer as only royalty is charged from the contractors on the transported minor minerals. Penal provisions for illegal transportation of minerals are not enforced. No effort is made by the State to see whether the transported minerals are procured from legal source or not.
2(iv) The attitude of the State departments in ignoring the 2015 Rules only results in illegal and unscientific mining, unmindful exploitation of State’s natural resources, adversely affecting the environment and ecology.
3. With the above submissions, the writ petition was filed for the following substantive prayers :-
Point of Law : Under Sections 15 & 23-C of MMDR Act, State has the power to regulate transport of minor minerals to check and prevent illegal mining.
Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals and rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals - State Government has no legislative competence ....
The court found that including processed minerals in the definition of 'Mineral' exceeds delegated legislative power, violating the parent Act and fundamental rights, thus rendering the amendment ult....
Point of Law : State Government is not competent to demand an amount equivalent to 10% of royalty from an exporter of minor minerals who has excavated such minor minerals in another State and seeks t....
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
The court validated the authority of the state to impose penalties for unauthorized quarrying, establishing compliance with statutory rules as per the MMDR Act.
The court ruled that processed minerals do not attract seigniorage fees under current laws, deeming the demand notices illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.