SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(All) 1585

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
R.P.Misra, Shishir Kumar
SATYA DEO DIKSHIT
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 21 May 2007
C. M. W. P. No. 39234 of 2002

Advocates:
MUKESH PRASAD, V.B.UPADHYA,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retrospective application of new rules affecting the storage and selling of minerals is not permissible, and individuals are not liable to pay royalty for minerals stored before the enforcement of such rules.

Headnote:

Illegal Mining - Uttar Pradesh Minerals - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Section 4(1-A), Section 21(1), U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, Rule 70 - The court discussed the retrospective application of the Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 and its impact on the storage and selling of minerals. It highlighted the provisions of Section 4(1-A) and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, as well as Rule 70 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, in relation to transportation and storage of minerals.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, traders of sand/morrum and gitti, stored minor minerals for selling in the open market. The State Government framed new rules, affecting the storage and selling of minerals. The respondents prevented the petitioners from disposing of the stock of morrum stored prior to the new rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the new rules could not be retrospective in operation and would not apply to minerals stored prior to their enforcement. It held that the petitioners were not liable to pay any royalty for minerals stored before the new rules came into force.

Issues: The issues revolved around the retrospective application of the new rules, the legality of preventing the petitioners from selling the stock of minerals, and the requirement of obtaining a license for storage and transportation of minerals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the non-retrospective nature of the new rules and the lack of evidence regarding the purchase and payment of royalty for the stored minerals. It emphasized that the petitioners were not obligated to pay royalty for minerals stored before the enforcement of the new rules.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, restraining the respondents from recovering any amount for the stock of minerals stored by the petitioners prior to the enforcement of the new rules. The respondents were permitted to proceed according to the new rules for stock subsequent to the enforcement date.

SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of mandamus declaring the Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002, as prospective in its operation. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the storage, selling and transporting of morrum, stored by the petitioners prior to coming into force of new Rules.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are traders of sand/morrum and gitti. Petitioner No. 1 stored minor minerals on plots No. 105 and 106 in village Badanpur, Tehsil and District Hamirpur for the purposes of selling it in the open market. Petitioner No. 2 has stored minerals on plots Nos. 76 and 77 belonging to one Sri Kamesh Chaurasiya in village Shitalpur, plots Nos. 78 and 333 belonging to one Sri Laxmi Narain Singh in Tehsil-Helapur and plot No. 354/2 belonging to one Sri Ram Kishun in village Kanauta in Tehsil & District Hamirpur. The petitioners purchased the above mentioned minerals from the open market and also from various lease/permit holders in the district Hamirpur and Mahoba for selling to various customers who take into for the purposes of private consumption. The petitioners purchase the said minerals from the lease holders and transport it to the business places. On 22-2-2002, the petitioner No. 1 received a notice from the mines officer by which the petitioners were directed to clarify the position of genuineness of the stock of morrum. According to the notice under Section 4 (1-A) of the Act, no person can stock or transport minerals without permission, otherwise action will be taken under Section 21 of the Act.

3. Since no rules were framed regulating the storage of minor minerals, petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court passed the following orders :

"heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

It has been alleged in para 9 of the writ petition that no rules have been framed under Section 4 (1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1999 and hence there is no ban to storage of sand.

In the circumstances, we direct that the respondents shall not interfere with petitioners storage of sand unless some rules have been made under Section 4 (1-A) of the Act prohibiting or regulating such storage in which case those rules have to be followed. "

4. That subsequently on 23-8-2002, further direction was issued to the respondents not to interfere with the transportation and selling morrum except in accordance with law. Now the State Government in purported exercise of powers under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has framed the Uttar Pradesh Minerals

(Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002, which has been published in the Official Gazette on 2-9-2002. After framing the aforesaid rules, the respondent No. 2 the District Magistrate Hamirpur without giving any show cause notice to the petitioners had directed the mines officer, Hamirpur not to permit the petitioners to transport or sell the stock of minerals stored by them, prior to coming into force the new rules, since according to the respondent No. 2, the stock of minerals stored by the petitioners have become illegal in view of the provisions of Rule 11 of the new Rules, which provides for obtaining a license prior to the storing of any mineral. The petitioners have been storing the minerals prior to the coming into force the new rules and the new rules does not provide for disposal of minerals stored prior to coming into force of the new rules, as such, the new rules are not applicable on the stock of the minerals already stored by the petitioners. Any person who commits a breach of the new rules and the provisions of Section 4 (1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, under which the new rules have been framed, sh

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top