2012 (4) CTC 1, 2012 (3) LW 503
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M.Y. EQBAL & T.S. SIVAGNANAM
M. Palanisamy
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Industries Department & Others
Writ Petition No. 14180 of 2011, W.P. Nos.14072, 14073, 14278, 14309, 14310, 14311, 14322, 14345, 14602, 14603, 14633, 15270, 15271, 15550, 16049, 16401, 16408, 16496, 16509, 16554, 16558, 16559, 16565, 16567, 16593, 16598, 16616, 16617, 16888, 16917, 17253, 17254, 17255, 17394 to 17398, 17473, 17474, 17715, 17848, 17849, 17851, 18572, 19057, 19058, 19067, 19081, 19082, 19134, 19135, 19142, 19143, 19161, 19185, 19186, 19196, 19225, 19226, 19239, 19283, 19309, 19311, 19315, 19316, 19343 of 2011
Decided on: 19-06-2012
The Court held that the impugned Rule 38-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which was introduced to regulate the storage and transportation of sand, was valid and constitutional. The Court found that the State Government had the power to make such rules under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and that the rules were necessary to prevent illegal mining, transportation, and storage of sand.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were registered dealers in river sand, challenged the validity of Rule 38-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which was introduced to regulate the storage and transportation of sand. The petitioners argued that the rule was ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned Rule 38-C was valid and constitutional. The Court found that the State Government had the power to make such rules under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and that the rules were necessary to prevent illegal mining, transportation, and storage of sand.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 38-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, was ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the State Government? 2. Whether the State Government had the power to make such rules under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned Rule 38-C was valid and constitutional. The Court found that the State Government had the power to make such rules under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and that the rules were necessary to prevent illegal mining, transportation, and storage of sand.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of Rule 38-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
1. These writ petitions have been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department dated 11.02.2011, quash the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ right to carry on their business from the petitioners’ stockyard situated through out the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. Since all these writ petitions raise the common question of law viz., quashing of G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 11.02.2011 issued by the respondent - State Government, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. A summarization of the relevant facts, which are necessary and germane for the disposal of this batch of writ petitions, would run thus (for the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P. No.14180 of 2011 are taken up for discussion) :-
Petitioners are registered dealers in river sand. They purchase sand from the Public Works Department and transport the same under valid bills issued by the Public Works Department to the leasehold stockyard. After transporting the sand, as the same cannot be used for construction as it is, the petitioners engage labourers, process the said sand by manual grading/machine grading for removal of stones, dust, unwanted elements such as shells, gravel, etc. and make the processed sand fit for construction. By the said process, out of the quantity purchased, only 75% will be fit for construction and the remaining 25% will become waste. ‘A’ grade sand is used for plastering, while ‘B’ grade for construction, whereas ‘C’ grade is used for filling purposes. For transporting the purchased sand, the petitioners use their own vehicles and also vehicles hired from outside. The processed, purified and filtered sand is being purchased by the intending buyers and is being transported to the destination of the purchaser’s choice under bills issued by the petitioners after paying necessary sales tax to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Such invoices/sale bills normally contain details such as (a) Date of invoice (b) Quantity of Mineral (c) Vehicle Number (d) Destination (e) Vehicle leaving time from the stockyard (f) expected time to reach the destination, etc.
4. According to the petitioners, Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) deals only with the granting of leases and purposes connected therewith and it does not deal with the trade in minerals or the movement of minerals from the stockyard or from the processing units. As per Section 15(3) of the Act, the holder of the mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under Section (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, whichever is more, for the minerals quarried and consumed as per the rates fixed by the State Government. In the case of minor minerals, the royalty is called ‘seigniorage’. It is stated that from 01.10.2003 onwards, quarrying of sand by private persons has been banned in the State of Tamil Nadu by introducing Rule 38-A to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules’) and the same was taken over by the Public Works Department. Ever since, the PWD is quarrying and selling sand at the quarry site by collecting the sale amount for each two units of sand. The sale price includes the value of the sand, quarrying cost, loading charges and seigniorage. Till 25.08.2008, the sand so purchased was permitted to be transported either within the State or outside the State without any restrictions. However, the Government of Tamil Nadu banned such transport outside the state by introducing Rule 38-B to the said Rules. When challenged, Rule 38-B was held to be valid by a Division Bench of this Court, since the quarrying is done by the PWD and the sale is made on condition that the sold sand should not be taken outside the State and also in view of Section 23-C of the Act dealing with illegal mining. The said section enables the State Govern
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.