1997 Supreme(MP) 185
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. MATHUR, S. K. KULSHRESTHA
NEOGY AND SONS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 3307 Of 1996
Decided On : 04/03/1997
R.S.JHA, RAVINDRA SHRIVASTAVA
STATE GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO REGULATE TRANSIT OF MINERALS AND PREVENT EVASION OF ROYALTIES UNDER RULE 27 (1) (I) OF MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960.
Headnote:
MINERAL CONCESSION - TRANSIT PASS REGULATIONS - VALIDITY - MINERAL TRANSIT PASS REGULATIONS, 1996, FRAMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER RULE 27 (1) (I) OF MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960 - HELD TO BE VALID AS THEY ARE NOT RULES BUT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY STATE GOVERNMENT TO EFFECTUATE PURPOSE OF RULE 27 (1) (I) AND VARIOUS CLAUSES OF LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRING STATE GOVERNMENT TO SEEK INFORMATION FROM LESSEE REGARDING QUANTITY OF MINERAL DRAWN, DESPATCH AND ROYALTY PAID.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS, HOLDING MINING LEASES FOR EXTRACTION OF MINERALS IN MADHYA PRADESH, CHALLENGED MINERAL TRANSIT PASS REGULATIONS, 1996, FRAMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT, REQUIRING TRANSIT PASSES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MINERALS, AS ULTRA VIRES OF STATE GOVERNMENT'S POWERS.
Finding of the Court:
STATE GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS UNDER RULE 27 (1) (I) OF MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960, TO REGULATE TRANSIT OF MINERALS AND PREVENT EVASION OF ROYALTIES.
Issues: WHETHER MINERAL TRANSIT PASS REGULATIONS, 1996, FRAMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER RULE 27 (1) (I) OF MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960, ARE ULTRA VIRES OF STATE GOVERNMENT'S POWERS.
Ratio Decidendi: RULE 27 (1) (I) OF MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960, EMPOWERS STATE GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO LESSEES TO MAINTAIN CORRECT ACCOUNTS OF MINERALS OBTAINED AND DESPATCHED, WHICH CAN BE EXAMINED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS. MINERAL TRANSIT PASS REGULATIONS, 1996, ARE NOT RULES BUT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY STATE GOVERNMENT TO EFFECTUATE THIS PURPOSE AND VARIOUS CLAUSES OF LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRING STATE GOVERNMENT TO SEEK INFORMATION FROM LESSEE REGARDING QUANTITY OF MINERAL DRAWN, DESPATCH AND ROYALTY PAID.
Final Decision: PETITIONS CHALLENGING MINERAL TRANSIT PASS REGULATIONS, 1996, DISMISSED.
( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid three petitions involve common question of law and facts; Therefore, they are disposed of by a common Order.
( 2 ) FOR convenient disposal of all the aforesaid petitions, the facts given in Writ Petition No. 3307/96 (M/s. Neogy and Sons, Jaitwar v. State of M. P.) are taken into consideration.
( 3 ) THE petitioners are holding mining leases for extraction of oculres bauxite, laterite, clay minerals in district - Jabalpur, Satna, Rewa and Shahdol, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The grievance is that the respondents are insisting the petitioners to obtain transit passes for transportation of Minerals from leased area to various destination. It is submitted that this Court in its judgment dated 4-5-1995 passed in M. P. No. 686/93, has declared that the State Government through its Officers and agents have no authority to direct the lease holders for major minerals to maintain the transit pass-books or issue the same and for absence of transit passes, they have no power or authority to seize the vehicles or minerals.
( 4 ) THE State Government, in order to check the pilferage of mineral and evasion of royalties, framed regulations known as 'mineral Transit Pass Regulations, 1996'. By virtue of these Regulations all despatches of minerals have to be accompanied by transit passes and transportation of mineral without transit passes, has been considered to be a violation of lease deed and penal action can be initiated; therefore, by this petition, the petitioners have again challenged the validity of Mineral Transit pases Regulations, 1996, being ultra vires of powers of the State Government. 4a. It may be relevant to mention here that so far as major minerals are concerned, they are governed by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1957' ). Section 3 (a) of the Act defines 'minerals', which reads as under :-"section 3 (a) : "minerals" includes all minerals except mineral oils". Section 3 (e) defines 'minor minerals', which reads as under :"s. 3 (e) : 'minor Minerals' means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral. "therefore, all the minerals which are notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette apart from already mentioned in this provision, shall be treated to be a minor mineral and rest will be the major minerals. There is no dispute that the leases which have been granted to the petitioners, are all major minerals. Section 4 of the Act lays down for prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease. Section 13 lays down that the rules for regulating these major minerals, shall be framed by the Central Govt. Section 14 of the Act says that Sections 5 to 13 are not to apply to minor minerals meaning thereby that all the provisions relating to major minerals will not be applicable to the minor minerals. By virtue of Entries 23 and 50 of List-II State List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution, it gives a power to the State Government to legislate on the minor minerals. Section 15 of the Act gives a power to the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concession in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Therefore, so far as the minor minerals are concerned, it is the State Government who can regulate the same. The Central Government in exercise of powers contained in Section 13 of the Act, has framed the rules known as 'mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules of 1960' ). We are not concerned with the Scheme of the Rules as that contemplates the procedure for grant of licence and the manner in which it has to be applied and thereafter how the licence is granted. However,, we are only concerned with the