Case: M/s. Banarsi Dass Chadha and Bros Vs. L.T. Governor, Delhi Admn. and Others

We granted special leave and heard arguments on the limited question whether" is a minor mineral within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 3 (e) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957The definition is as follows:"Minor mineral 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 minor mineral;"In exercise of the power conferred by Section 3(e) of the Act, the Central Government declared the following minerals to be minor minerals"Boulder, Shingle, Chalcedony pebbles used for ball mill purposes only, limeshell kanker and limestone used for lime burning, murrum,, fullers earth, bentonite road metal,, slate and shale when used for building material;"

Reasoning: We agree with the learned Counsel that a substance must first be a mineral before it can be notified as a minor mineral pursuant to the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(e) of the Act. The question, therefore, is whetherh is a mineral. The expression "Minor Mineral" as defined in Section 3(e) includes ordinary clay and ordinary sand. If the expression "minor mineral" as defined in Section 3(e) of the Act includes ordinary clay and `ordinary sand, there is no reason why earth used for the purpose A of making bricks should not be comprehended within the meaning of the word "any other mineral" which may be declared as a "minor mineral" by the Government. The word "mineral" is not a term of art. It is a word of common parlance, capable of a multiplicity of meaning depending upon the context. For example the word is occasionally used in a very wide sense to denote any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable. Sometimes it is used in a narrow sense to mean no more than precious metalls like gold and silver. Again, the word "minerals" is often used to indicate substances obtained from underneath the surface of the earth by digging or quarrying. But this is not always so as point ed out by Chandrachud, J (as he then was) in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh, ([1976] 3 S.C.R. 869.)As we said earlier the word mineral is an elastic word whose meaning depends upon the setting in which it is used. For instance, in the case cited, the question was whether clay forming the surface or subsoil, and constituting the "land" compulsorily taken for the purposes of a railway, was not a mineral WITH the meaning of Sections 77, 78 or 79 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. The answer was that clay was not a mineral for the purposes of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. Any other conclusion, in the context of the Act, would have led to the absurd result that the original owner whose land had been taken would be entitled to dig and take away the clay from the land on which the Railway was constructed, thus defeating the very object of the compulsory taking. On the other hand, as noticed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in several English cases clay, gravel, sand, stone etc. has been held to be minerals. That is why we say the word mineral has no definite meaning but has a variety of meanings, depending on the context of its use. In the context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation &Development) Act, we have no` doubt that the word mineral is of sufficient amplitude to include. As already observed y us, if the expression minor mineral as defined in the Act includes ordinary clay and ordinary sand. there is no earthly reason why should not be held to be any other mineral which may be declared as minor mineral.. We do not think it necessary to pursue the matter further except to say that this was The view taken in Laddu Mal v. State of Bihar (A.I.R 1965 Patna 491) Amar Singh Modilal v. State of Haryana(A.I.R 1972 Punj. & Har. 356) and Sharma &Co. v. State of U.P.(A.I.R.. 1975 All. 86.). We do not agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Jagadamba Prasad (A.I.R.. 1969 Cal. 2XI.) that because speaks of ordinary earth as a mineral it is not a minor mineral as defined in the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act.