KALADWAS CHAMBER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged vires of Rules 2 (xvi), 60 (4) and 92 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2017"), which read thus :-

(2.) .At this juncture, Mr. D.D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Division Bench at Jaipur has only examined the challenge to Rule 2(xvi) and Rule 60(4) of the Rules of 2017, whereas Rule 92 of the Rules of 2017 has not been subject matter of the said writ petition. He contended that besides this, not only the facts involved in the case before Division Bench at Jaipur were different from the facts involved in the present case, even the grievance are different. Highlighting his grievance, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners besides purchasing the minerals after payment of appropriate royalty, also purchase marble slurry and mineral waste, to be processed in their grinding units/crushers. He contended that requirement of obtaining transit pass even qua the marble slurry and mineral waste is illegal, arbitrary and an unnecessary hindrance in their right to trade.

(3.) While advancing his arguments further, he contended that once the mineral is excavated and dispatched from mine heads, the State Government loses its authority or power to control and legislate. The impugned Rules, including Rule 92 of the Rules of 2017, requiring the petitioners and other similarly situated manufacturers to obtain transit pass, even in relation to marble slurry and waste, which are not minerals per se, are illegal and beyond the rule making power of the State Government, which flows from Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the MMDR Act").