Writ Petition (MD)No.6443 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus to all for the records pertaining to the first respondent's G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents, their agents, officers, and men not to cause any interference to the sale of sand duly purchased from the PWD from the stockyard of the petitioner consists of 16,400 cents situated in Re-survey No.106/1B2 of Colachel Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J)
1. These Writ Petitions have been filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 and quash the same and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right to carry on the business from the petitioner's stockyard situated in various places in the State of Tamil Nadu. Since in all these Writ Petitions a common question, namely, quashing of G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 is raised, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In the year 2011, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 whereby introducing rule 38-C in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 and vires of Rule 38-C have been challenged in the batch of Writ Petitions.
3. By judgment dated 19.6.2012 in M.Palanisamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Industries department Fort St.George and 4 others in W.P.(MD)No.14180 of 2011 (batch of cases) reported in 2012 (4) CTC 1, the First Bench of this Court has upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.2.2011 and Rule 38-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and dismissed all the Writ Petitions. Paragraphs 35 to 40 of the judgment may be usefully extracted hereunder:-
35. It is to be noted that the then Joint Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, in his affidavit, stated that though the Public Works Department has been quarrying sand in the entire State, the Government has received reports of illicit quarrying and transportation of sand by unscrupulous elements. In order to curtail such activities of illicit quarrying in the State of Tamil Nadu, the offence of sand quarrying has been brought within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. In order to strengthen the regulation of mineral administration, the Government has included the officials of the police department, not below the rank of Inspector of Police, to exercise the power contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act.
36. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that many other States have framed Rules in exercise of the power conferred upon them under Section 23- C of the Act. The State of Andhra Pradesh has framed the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000; the Government of Bihar has framed the Bihar Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2003; the Government of Maharashtra has framed the Maharashtra Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2001; the Government of Chhattisgarh has passed the Minerals Transit Pass Regulations, 1996; and the Government of Orissa has framed the Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and other Unlawful Activities) Act, 1999. Thus, Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 authorizes the State Governments to frame rules in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minor minerals.
37. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, in his affidavit, has stated that in exercise of such a power under the amended Rules, the illegal mining of sand and smuggling to neighbouring States has been brought under control to a great extent. It is stated that over a period of one year, 4173 cases of illegal sand mining have been filed, 5033 persons have been arrested, 5501 vehicles have been seized and dozens of persons have been taken into preventive custody and a sum of Rs.14 Crores has been collected as penalty from such offenders. 38. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and after considering the relevant Constitutional provisions, the Act and the Rules, we are of the definite opinion that the statutory duty imposed upon the sand dealers under Rule 38-C of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for the purpose of preventing illegal mining, storage and transportation of sand, cannot be held as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires the Constitutional provisions or any of the provisions of the Act. We hold that Rule 38-C of the said Rules is fully in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and it cannot be held as an excessive exercise of power by the State Government.
39. For all the above reasons, finding no merits, we dismiss this entire batch of writ petitions. Consequently, all the respective connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
4. These Writ Petitions are covered by the above said judgment. Following the said judgment, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.