1. A common issue that has arisen for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who are granted with quarry lease to quarry Aralai, Jelly and Sholing, are bound to obtain transit pass under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, shortly, “the Prevention Rules 2011” to transport crushed stone powder (M-sand) to Kerala ?

2.0. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted quarry lease to quarry Aralai, Jelly and Sholing in patta lands under Rules 19 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 shortly, “the Concessions Rules 1959”. The stones, that have been quarried from the leasehold area, are transported to the crushing units of the petitioners with the transport permits and fascimiled despatch slips issued under the Concession Rules, 1959 after payment of seigniorage fee. In the crushing units, the stones are crushed into various sizes, including crushed stone powder, which is known as M-Sand. They sought to transport the crushed or crusher dust (M-Sand) to Kerala.

2.1. According to the petitioners, there is no prohibition or restriction imposed in any law to transport the M-sand to other States. The restriction with reference to transportation of sand under Rules 38-B and 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959, does not apply to crushed stone powder (M-Sand). It is also their case that Article 301 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of trade throughout the territory of India and hence, the petitioners have right to transport the M-Sand outside the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations. According to the respondents, as per the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as “Prevention Rules, 2011”), obtaining of “Transit Pass” to transport M-Sand from one place to another (in this case, it is Kerala) is mandatory to quarry lease-holders also. It is only a regulatory measure and it is not a prohibition to their trade. Rule 3 of the Rules 2011, is heavily relied on by the respondents in this regard.

4. Heard both sides.

5.0. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2011, granting exemption for the quarry leaseholder to register themselves as a “Mineral Dealer”, the quarry lease-holder need not obtain “Transit Pass” to transport M-sand from their crushing units to any place. The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules 2011.

5.1. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that M-sand is a mineral product and therefore, the Prevention Rules, 2011 framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under Section 23-C(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 prohibiting the transportation of mineral product is beyond the competency of the rule making power of the State. The learned Senior Counsel took me through Section 23-C(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submitted that Section 23-C vests power in the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and not mineral products.

5.2. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that Article 301 of the Constitution guarantees to its citizens the right to freedom of trade throughout the territory of India and hence, the petitioners have right to transport the M-Sand outside the State of Tamil Nadu.

5.3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in this regard :

1. unreported judgment of this Court dated 20.06.2000 in W.P.No.18523 of 1998 (Trichy District Half Body-Lorry Owners Association rep. by its Secretary Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy and others) ;

2. unreported judgment of this Court date