Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S.P. Roy and Another Vs. State of U. P. and Others

S.P. Roy and Another vs State of U. P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 15, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484147

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 35792 of 1993
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Commercial- transit pass and transit fee - Rule 51 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - petitioner deals with silica sand - silica sand is major mineral - petitioner alleged harassment by respondent by demanding transit pass and transit fee while transporting silica sand - held, Rule 51 does not permit authorities to...

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 51; Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 70

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.P. Roy and Another

Advocate Jitendra Pandey, Adv.

Respondent

State of U. P. and Others

Advocate S. C.

Legal References

Acts
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 51; Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 70
Reported In
2000(4)AWC3112

Excerpt

commercial- transit pass and transit fee - rule 51 of mineral concession rules, 1960 - petitioner deals with silica sand - silica sand is major mineral - petitioner alleged harassment by respondent by demanding transit pass and transit fee while transporting silica sand - held, rule 51 does not permit authorities to require transit pass and transit fee from transporters of silica sand-petition allowed. - - hence, the action of the respondents is clearly illegal......is that the respondents harass them when they are transporting silica sand by requiring them to produce transit passes and pay transit fee, which is not required by any law.5. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that requirement of transport pass and transit fee for transporting silica sand, which is not a minor mineral, is totally beyond the jurisdiction of the state authorities. learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no doubt under rule 70 of the u. p. minor mineral (concession) rules, the authorities can demand showing of transit pass issued by the lease holder, but this provision is only regarding transport of minor minerals, and there is no similar provision in the mineral concession rules. 1960 which deals with major minerals. however, learned standing counsel relied on rule 51 of the mineral concession rules, 1960 which states ;'the holder of a prospecting licence or a mining lease shall furnish to the state government such returns and statements and within such period as may be specified by it.'6. in our opinion, the above provision does not permit the authorities to require transit pass and transit fee from transporters of silica sand. hence, the action of the respondents is clearly illegal.7. the petition is therefore, allowed, and a mandamus is issued to the respondents not to insist on production of transit pass and transit fee from the petitioners. the impugned notice is quashed.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have challenged the publication notice dated 25.5.1993 and has prayed for a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in his excavation and transportation of silica sand.

3. The petitioners deal with silica sand, which is a major mineral, as contrasted to ordinary sand, which is a minor mineral. A major mineral is governed by the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960, while a minor mineral is governed by the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, both these rules being made under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents harass them when they are transporting silica sand by requiring them to produce transit passes and pay transit fee, which is not required by any law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that requirement of transport pass and transit fee for transporting silica sand, which is not a minor mineral, is totally beyond the jurisdiction of the State authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no doubt under Rule 70 of the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, the authorities can demand showing of transit pass issued by the lease holder, but this provision is only regarding transport of minor minerals, and there is no similar provision in the Mineral Concession Rules. 1960 which deals with major minerals. However, learned standing counsel relied on Rule 51 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which states ;

'The holder of a prospecting licence or a mining lease shall furnish to the State Government such returns and statements and within such period as may be specified by it.'

6. In our opinion, the above provision does not permit the authorities to require transit pass and transit fee from transporters of silica sand. Hence, the action of the respondents is clearly illegal.

7. The petition is therefore, allowed, and a mandamus is issued to the respondents not to insist on production of transit pass and transit fee from the petitioners. The impugned notice is quashed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial