IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State's authority to grant minor mineral licenses is subject to the specified end-use of the mineral, and the State must prevent the misuse and export of minor minerals, particularly limestone, under such licenses.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee; CJ. - At the outset it must be recorded that there has been a considerable twist in the matter, in the sense that the perceived original grievance bears little resemblance to the ultimate bone of contention.

2. When this petition, filed in public interest, was received, the Court was minded to entertain the same on the ground that a valuable mineral and natural resource, which this idyllic State tucked away in one corner of the vast country was endowed with, was sought to be willy-nilly squandered without a care for tomorrow. The premise on which this Court found an element of public interest in the matter was the manner in which limestone was being permitted to be quarried in the State and the resultant likelihood of the imminent depletion of its finite resources. The fundamental premise remains unaltered though there has, undoubtedly, been a twist in the tale.

3. Keeping the basic grievance - of the rapid depletion of limestone deposits in the State - in mind, the course that this petition has charted over the last six months or so may be noticed from the orders passed herein. The petition was received and progressed for nearly three years in rather timid fashion till it appeared to spring to life with an order made on April 5 this year. It must be acknowledged that for most of the interregnum an invisible virus and the several lockdowns that it brought in its wake disrupted Court activities as it, indeed, threw life across the globe into disarray like never before.

4. The order dated April 5, 2022 noticed that documents relied upon by the petitioner revealed that an amendment had been brought about in the Meghalaya Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 on January 29, 2018 with what appeared to be a disingenuous design to facilitate illegal quarrying and mining. In the backdrop of the wanton illegal mining of coal that remained unchecked till orders of the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court beginning 2016 came to be made, it was a serious issue. Indeed, it was a matter that alarmed the Court, particularly since around the same time it came to the notice of this Court that despite the strict orders of the NGT and the Supreme Court pertaining to illegal coalmining, the State had done little to implement the same and there were reports of tragic deaths caused by rathole-mining pouring in from several parts of the State.

5. To continue with the order dated April 5, 2022, the Court found that a new definition was added to the Rules of 2016 by introducing, inter alia, clause (u) to define the word 'incidental':

'(u) 'incidental' in the context of extraction of minor minerals means such an unintended extraction which arises out of non-mining activities such as construction of roads or other major infrastructural projects.'

6. This Court observed in the relevant order that the definition was not exhaustive and it only referred to certain activities like construction of roads and other major infrastructural projects as falling within the meaning of 'incidental extraction' of minor minerals, but the definition deliberately left it open to interpretation and application in other cases. This Court observed that a person may dig deep in his ground to extract some minor minerals and claim to have 'incidentally' extracted the same while preparing the ground for cultivation. To boot, the Court relied on an official list that showed wanton plundering of limestone by euphemistically referring to it as 'incidental' extraction and the Administration endorsing such activity.

7. At the same time, the Court noticed that though the Rules pertaining to transportation of minerals had not been altered, yet 'incidental challans' came to be issued for minor minerals that had been 'incidentally' extracted in terms of the definition of 'incidental' introduced as Rule 2(u) of the said Rules of 2016. This Court recorded that the petitioner's response to queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed that though R