PREMIUM GRANITES Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the connected matters are directed against the judgment dated 16th June, 1993 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 5793 of 1993. The Writ Petitioner Durai Raju Naidu moved the aforesaid writ petition before the Madras High Court for a declaration that Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Mineral Concession Rules) as unconstitutional and void. The said Writ Petitioner contended inter alia that he was granted lease with respect to quarry in Survey No. 782/1 in Kulathur village and he had been agitating before the State Government for the renewal of the said lease but he apprehended that the concerned authorities were likely to exercise their prerogative under the said Rule 39 to grant lease to somebody else and in order to safeguard his interest, the Writ Petition was moved by him for the aforesaid declaration.

(2.) To sustain the challenge to the said Rule 39, the Writ Petitioner, Shri Naidu, urged two main grounds, namely, (a) The State Government had no power to frame a rule deviating from the Mineral Concession Rules already made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMRD Act), and (b) Rule 39 had conferred arbitrary, uncanalised and unguided power on the executive thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The expression "public purpose and interest of mineral development" as referred to in the said Rule 39 is vague and do not constitute sufficient guidelines. The said Writ Petition was contested by the State of Madras and also by other respondents who were impleaded in the Writ proceedings, namely, the Tamil Nadu Granites Quarry Owners and Exporters Association, Shanthi Granites and the Premium Granites.

(3.) The Division Bench of the Madras High Court by the impugned judgment did not accept the first contention of the Writ Petitioner but upheld the second contention and declared that Rule 39 of the Mineral Concession Rules was unconstitutional and void.