1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.3511 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 Janatha Agency, Represented by its Proprietor, F.Gipson Leon 64-A, Sathyanesan Street, Christu Nagar, Vetoornimadam, Nagercoil ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari at Nagerkoil. 2. The Assistant Director of Geology, Kanyakumari District at Nagerkoil. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates, officers and men for insisting the petitioner and the petitioner's customers either to obtain transport permit or to get mentioning of the final place of destination in the bills issued by the Public Works Department to transport the processed and filtered sand from the stockyard of the petitioner totally measuring 2 cents comprised in additional plea of business in Survey No.704, Pallivilai Road, Opp. To Salvation Army Church, Vetoornimadam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to the place of the petitioner's destination and the petitioner's purchaser's destination. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate ------- O R D E R The petitioner made a general prayer seeking for a direction to the respondents to forbearing the respondents, their agents, subordinates, officers and men for insisting the petitioner and the petitioner's customers either to obtain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 transport permit or to get mentioning of the final place of destination in the bills issued by the Public Works Department to transport the processed and filtered sand from the stockyard of the petitioner totally measuring 2 cents comprised in additional plea of business in Survey No.704, Pallivilai Road, Opp. To Salvation Army Church, Vetoornimadam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District to the place of the petitioner's destination and the petitioner's purchaser's destination. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 24.03.2011, notice regarding admission was ordered. But the Writ Petition has been filed without referring to the statutory amendment Rules framed under Section 15(1) & (1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also Section 23(C)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Rules are known as the Tamil Nadu Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers' Rule 2011, unless the Rules are questioned the petitioner will have to comply with the said Rules. 3. Under the said Rules, the State Government has power to grant registration and renewal of registration. If any person wants to get registration he must make application to the District Collector, pursuant to the said registration. Transport permit and transit pass will be issued, while issuing such registration. Conditions under Rule 7 can be imposed. Any violation of the condition will result in confiscation and seizure of the materials including the transport vehicles and custody can be taken over. There are also penalties provided under the Rules. It is not clear that as to how the association can challenge said Rules. Even though, it is stated that the names of the members of the petitioners' association are set out in the typed set along with the registration certificate, the grievances of individual members are not spelt out. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the Rules are without jurisdiction and the impugned Rule 38-C was also invalid and contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that though the alleged purpose of introduction of preventing the illegal quarrying and transportation of mineral and not for controlling the mineral trade and sale of stone. Whenever any illicit quarrying or illicit transport or illicit storage of the mineral is noticed by the authorities by such quarrying, transport and storage can always be curbed by the State Government. But the present G.O places restriction on the petitioner in carrying out their trade and the Rules are totally against the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and against the law declared by the Principal Bench in 1993 WLR 1963 and confirmed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 858. It states that once the mineral is quarried and seigniorage is paid, the ownership of the said mineral passes into the hands of the lessee or its subsequent purchasers. The Act also enable to set up check-post and weigh bridges and there is no deliberation of State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Government to frame the Rule, which is set out herein. The question of identifying the stone lying at the stockyard or processing unit, if each sale bill to the sale tax department is practically impossible to sign each bill like the transportation of textiles. 5. It is stated that these Rules when challenged before the Principal Bench, they were dismissed and it was held that the State Government has power under both enactments including under the Central Rules. Similarly Rules are enacted to achieve the object of prevailing large scale illegal quarrying of minerals, illegal transportation and its storage. The Rules are regulatory in nature and not a restraint on any lawful trade or business, as contended by the petitioner. 6. Merely because, the members of the petitioners' association have some irritant in the observance of the Rules that cannot be a ground for impugning the Rule. Already this Court has held in many cases and in a public interest litigation is monitoring such illegal quarrying and it had issued several guidelines. A committee was also formed to prevent such quarrying. The Rules are only intended to enhance the public vigil over the preservation of the minerals. The petitioner cannot claim unbridled right to deal with such minerals. 7. Under the said circumstances, as the impugned Rules are made in public interest and does not affect the rights of the members of the petitioner's Association in any way, there is no question of holding them as ultra vires and unconstitutional. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Asssitant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari, at Nagerkoil. 2. The Assistant Director of Geology, Kanyakumari District, at Nagerkoil +One cc to M/s.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate, SR.No.361660 +One cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.36105 ps rl/5c – 9.11.2011 W.P.(MD)No.3511 of 2011 18.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/