HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited has approached this court through this writ petition for assailing the legality and validity of the Rajasthan Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2007'). The validity of the Rules has been challenged on the ground that the framing thereof is beyond the rule making power delegated to the State Government under Sec. 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957'.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Punit Singhvi, representing the petitioner, addressing the court through VC, vehemently and fervently urged that the Rules of 2007 are nothing but an attempt of the State to exercise control over major minerals/specified minerals, to be specific in the case at hand - Lead-Zinc Ore or Lead Zinc Concentrate, which is a specified mineral/major mineral within the meaning of the Act of 1957. He contended that as the Act of 1957 does not give any jurisdiction to the State Government to legislate for the specified minerals/major minerals, the Rules of 2007 are ultra vires the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the rules do not have any effective, impartial, independent grievance redressal mechanism inasmuch as appeal/revision against an order of the authorized officer working under the aegis of the Mining Department of the State Government is to be filed to the same Department of the State Government instead of a Mining Tribunal and hence also, the Rules of 2007 are illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India as well as of the Act of 1957. He submitted that the competent officer under the Rules of 2007 has issued notices/letters to the petitioner raising an issue of loss of revenue on account of mining data contained in the returns of the petitioner for the last 10 years and that the petitioner has challenged these letters by filing a writ petition before Hon'ble Jaipur Bench. He urged that the Act of 1957 is a Central Legislation enacted with reference to entry 54 to List I of the Constitution. By virtue of a declaration made under Sec. 2 of the Act of 1957, in the public interest, the Central Government holds absolute control on the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act of 1957. minerals have been defined under Sec. 3(aa) of the Act of 1957 to mean "all minerals other than mineral oils" and minor minerals have been defined under Sec. 3(e) of the Act of 1957. He urged that Lead, Zinc, Copper, Silver and Cadmium are not the minerals covered under Sec. 3(e) of the Act of 1957. He drew the court's attention to Sec. 13 of the Act of 1957, and urged that the Central Government is exclusively empowered to make rules in respect of major minerals. Sec. 14 of the Act of 1957 excludes minor minerals from the ambit of Ss. 5 to 13 of the Act of 1957. He further urged that power conferred upon the State Government is limited to grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. Further submission was made that the Rules of 2007 have been framed for purposes affiliated to mining activities. Thus, it was the fervent contention of Shri Singhvi that under the framework of the Act of 1957, the Central Government has exclusive domain to make rules and regulations for governing all aspects of mining related to major minerals/specified minerals and the State Government is precluded from exercising power in reference to such minerals. He urged that as the enabling provision contained in Sec. 23C of the Act of 1957 does not give any dominion to the State Government to legislate in relation to major minerals, the Rules of 2007, whereby the State Government has exercised jurisdiction qua major minerals, are clearly ultra vires the Act of 1957. He placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of D.K. Trivedi And Sons and Ors. Vs. State Of Gujarat and Ors. [(1986) SCC Supl. 20] and more particularly, the observations made in paras 32 and 33 of the said judgment, which reads as below :-

(3.) Shri Singhvi has filed exhaustive written submissions in support of his oral arguments, wherein, the grounds raised in the writ petition have been reiterated. The grounds, which require special mention, are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-