CHIMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein is challenging the constitutional validity of sub-rules (14) & (15) of Rule 30 of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 ("Rules" for short) as being violative of Article 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and on variety of other grounds as mentioned in the petition.

(2.) Admittedly, petitioner was granted a quarry lease for extracting yellow clay from Compartment No. 109, Coupe No. 25 at Village Bagra Tawa, District Hoshangabad (MP) for a period of ten years, commencing from 12-1-1993 to 11 -1 -2003. The said lease has since come to an end. The petitioner applied for renewal of lease before the competent authority, but the same also came to be rejected as the area which was earlier leased out to the petitioner, was falling within the forest area. Against such refusal, petitioner also preferred an appeal but the appeal also came to be dismissed. Thus, it cannot be disputed as on date, there is no lease in favour of the petitioner, which has since expired on 11-1-2003.

(3.) On notices being issued, respondents submitted their reply. According to them, the impugned provisions of sub-rule (14) and 15 of Rule 30 of the Rules do not suffer from any illegality or constitutional infirmity and as such, call for no interference by this Court. The petitioner was sanctioned a quarry for extraction of yellow clay for manufacturing of roof tiles over an area of four hectares situated in Bagra forest land and the said lease has now come to an end on 11-1-2003. Ever since then, petitioner has no right to excavate or extract aforesaid minor mineral from the said quarry as admittedly he has no permission to do so. It has also been contended that the yellow clay which is being used by the petitioner for the purposes of manufacturing roof tiles has no other market as it can be used only for the aforesaid purpose. It is the further submission of the respondents that large number of persons are engaged in illegal excavation of yellow clay from the said forest area which is adversely affecting the environment and causing damage to vegetation. They have also contended that only after buying yellow clay from those persons, petitioner is able to run the factory as admittedly he has no lease in his favour after 2003. It is also mentioned that sub-rules (14) and (15) of Rule 30 only require transit passes for transportation of minerals or its products which cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 or 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said provisions have been enacted only with a view to ensure proper accounting of minerals thereby preventing any evasion of royalty payable on the said minor minerals. Reference to Section 15 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (for brevity referred to as the Act) has been made which empowers the State Government to make rules for regulating grant of quarry lease, mining lease and other mineral concessions. In respect of mines and minerals, sub-section (l)(a) of Section 15 of the Act specifies the matter in respect of which rules may be framed by the State Government. Special reference has been made to clause (a) thereof which gives power and competence to the State Government to frame rules regulating terms on which and the conditions subject to which quarry lease, mining lease and other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed. Such powers also include power to regulate transportation of minerals and products made therefrom. In the light of the aforesaid reply, it has been contended that aforesaid provisions cannot be said to be ultra vires the Constitution.