Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. In these batches of writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of “ Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007”, framed in exercise of powers conferred under section 23C(1)(2) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulations)Act, 1957 by the State Government of Jharkhand vide notification dated 21.9.2007. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the consequential orders issued by the District Mining Officer under the Rules of 2007 directing the petitioners to obtain registration under the aforesaid rules. In the alternative the petitioners in W.P.C. No. 6244 of 2007 have sought for a declaration that the impugned Rules of 2007 does not apply to the business of the petitioners as they are governed by the provisions of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947 read with Bihar Mica Rules, 1948 as it is an occupied field under the relevant statutes passed by the said legislature over which the aforesaid Rules cannot apply. The petitioners have further prayed inter-alia for a direction upon the respondents restraining them from taking any coercive / penal action against the petitioners under the provisions of the Rules of 2007.

2. Petitioners under W.P.C. No. 6244 of 2007 i.e., Bihar Mica Exporters Association claim themselves to be the members carrying on the business and trading in Mica on the basis of Dealers License granted under Section 6 of the Mica Act,1947 which, as per them are valid and subsisting. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P.K.Prasad submitted that the Mica Act was enacted for the purpose of regulating and controlling the possession and trade in Mica and the Bihar Mica Rules framed thereunder provides the mode and manner for carrying out the purpose of the said Act. By referring to the different provisions of the Mica Act, 1947 and the Rules, learned counsel has contended that the impugned rules have been framed in a field occupied under the plenary powers of the State legislature. He has relied on a judgment reported in (2006)4 SCC 327, para 17 thereof stating that the impugned rules are contrary to the other existing legislation and therefore, bad in law. The petitioners claim that they are carrying on their business including export and trade in Mica in compliance of the provisions of the Mica Act and Rules framed thereunder. The cause of action for these petitioners have arisen on the issuance of the impugned letter dated 22.10.2007 (annexure-5) asking them to get registered under the provisions of Rules of 2007 or else face the penal consequences.

3. The petitioners in W.P.C. No. 7 of 2008 are members of Industries and Commerce Association, who own and possess their respective hard coke plants located in the district of Dhanbad and are companies duly registered under Section 25 of the Company's Act. Learned Counsel, Mr. Biren Poddar asserted on their behalf that they purchase coal from different collieries of C.C.L. and B.C.C.L situated in the state of Jharkhand as raw materials for the purpose of production of hard coke in the respective plants owned by them for the purpose of selling them in the market. They are neither doing any mining work nor holding any mining license. It is also submitted on their behalf that coal is a major mineral and not a minor mineral as defined under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957( herein after referred to as MMDR Act) and that the State Government is empowered under Section 15 of the said act for making Rules in respect of minor minerals only. It is their contention that under the amended section 23C inserted by the Act 38 of 1999, w.e.f. 18.12.1999 the State Government has been conferred powers to make Rules for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minor minerals only. It is further contended that the impugned Rules are violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 300A of the Constitution, besides having been framed in excess of the powers conferred under Section 23C and as per Section 28