Sri Veknataramanaswamy Blue Metals Vs. District Collector - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1168613
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJun-26-2014
JudgeD.HARIPARANTHAMAN
AppellantSri Veknataramanaswamy Blue Metals
RespondentDistrict Collector
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated :26. .06..2014 coram the honourable mr.justice d.hariparanthaman w.p.nos.30131 to 30135 of 2012, 30617 and 33332 of 2012 m.p.nos.1 of 2013 in each w.p. w.p.no.30131 of 2012 m/s.sri veknataramanaswamy blue metals, rep. by its managing partner m.sivanandam, no.128, bye pass road, karur  639 002. ... petitioner vs.1. the district collector, coimbatore district, coimbatore.2. the superintendent of police (rural), coimbatore district, coimbatore. ... respondents * * * prayer in w.p.no.30131 of 2012 : writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's and their customers'right to transport the crusher material, i.e.,.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :

26. .06..2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.Nos.30131 to 30135 of 2012, 30617 and 33332 of 2012 M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 in each W.P. W.P.No.30131 of 2012 M/s.Sri Veknataramanaswamy Blue Metals, Rep. by its Managing Partner M.Sivanandam, No.128, Bye Pass Road, Karur  639 002. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

2. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. ... Respondents * * * Prayer in W.P.No.30131 of 2012 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's and their customers'right to transport the crusher material, i.e., M.Sand from the crushing unit of the petitioner at S.F.No.155, Thennilai (East) Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District, to the place of the petitioner's purchasers destination in the neighbouring State of Kerala with the valid bills issued by the petitioner. * * * For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for M/s.V.Sanjeevi For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Govt. Pleader COMMON

ORDER

A common issue that has arisen for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who are granted with quarry lease to quarry Aralai, Jelly and Sholing, are bound to obtain transit pass under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, shortly, the Prevention Rules 2011 to transport crushed stone powder (M-sand) to Kerala ?. 2.0. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted quarry lease to quarry Aralai, Jelly and Sholing in patta lands under Rules 19 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 shortly, the Concessions Rules 1959. The stones, that have been quarried from the leasehold area, are transported to the crushing units of the petitioners with the transport permits and fascimiled despatch slips issued under the Concession Rules, 1959 after payment of seigniorage fee. In the crushing units, the stones are crushed into various sizes, including crushed stone powder, which is known as M-Sand. They sought to transport the crushed or crusher dust (M-Sand) to Kerala. 2.1. According to the petitioners, there is no prohibition or restriction imposed in any law to transport the M-sand to other States. The restriction with reference to transportation of sand under Rules 38-B and 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959, does not apply to crushed stone powder (M-Sand). It is also their case that Article 301 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of trade throughout the territory of India and hence, the petitioners have right to transport the M-Sand outside the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations. According to the respondents, as per the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as Prevention Rules, 2011), obtaining of Transit Pass to transport M-Sand from one place to another (in this case, it is Kerala) is mandatory to quarry lease-holders also. It is only a regulatory measure and it is not a prohibition to their trade. Rule 3 of the Rules 2011, is heavily relied on by the respondents in this regard.

4. Heard both sides. 5.0. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2011, granting exemption for the quarry leaseholder to register themselves as a Mineral Dealer, the quarry lease-holder need not obtain Transit Pass to transport M-sand from their crushing units to any place. The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules 2011. 5.1. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that M-sand is a mineral product and therefore, the Prevention Rules, 2011 framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under Section 23-C(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 prohibiting the transportation of mineral product is beyond the competency of the rule making power of the State. The learned Senior Counsel took me through Section 23-C(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submitted that Section 23-C vests power in the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and not mineral products. 5.2. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that Article 301 of the Constitution guarantees to its citizens the right to freedom of trade throughout the territory of India and hence, the petitioners have right to transport the M-Sand outside the State of Tamil Nadu. 5.3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments in this regard : (1)unreported judgment of this Court dated 20.06.2000 in W.P.No.18523 of 1998 (Trichy District Half Body-Lorry Owners Association rep. by its Secretary Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy and others) ; (2)unreported judgment of this Court dated 21.02.2007 in W.P.No.6212 of 2007 (Sri Ganesh Murugan Blue Metals rep. by its Proprietor M.Gunasekaran V. The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal and others) ; (3)Tej Bahadur Dube (dead) by Lrs. V. Forest Range Officers F.S. (S.W.), Hyderabad, reported in (2003) 3 SCC122; (4)M/s.Novel Granites Ltd. & Ors. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR2009AP107; and (5)Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148. 6.0. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that M-sand is also a mineral. He took me through the definition of minerals as defined under Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011 along with Rule 36(1)(ii-a) of the Concession Rules, 1959 that defines Stone. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that M-sand is only a mineral and not a mineral product, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. According to him, while Rule 38-C of the Concessions Rules, 1959 prohibits transportation of sand without a valid transport permit or without a sale slip from the competent authority from one place to another place, Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2011, prohibits transportation of all minerals other than sand without Transit Pass from one place to another. Even the quarry lease-holder should obtain transit pass as it is only a regulatory measure. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the concession given to the quarry lease holder in the proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2011 is that he need not register as a Mineral Dealer under the Prevention Rules, 2011. Since the Quarry leaseholders are exempted from registration as Mineral Dealer, they are relieved of from the burden of maintenance of various registers, as per the Preventions Rules, 2011. But the quarry lease-holder shall also obtain Transit Pass for transporting the minerals, like a Mineral Dealer. 6.1. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the following judgments, in support of his submissions : (1)M/s.Bannari Dass Chadha V. Delhi Administration, reported in (1978) 4 SCC11 (2)Full Bench judgment of this Court in D.Sivakumar V. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, reported in (2011) 2 L.W. 769 ; (3)Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Palanisamy V. State of T.N. reported in (2012) 5 MLJ513 and (4)unreported order of this court dated 29.06.2012 in W.P.(MD)No.2997 of 2011 (G.Karthikeyan V. The Secretary to Government, Mines and Minerals, Secretariat, Chennai and others) ; 6.2. The learned Additional Advocate General also relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148, which was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by either side. 8.0. The Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1957) pursuant to its legislative power under Entry 54 of List I of VII Schedule of the Constitution. The Act was to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union of India. The Act deals with minerals other than petroleum. 8.1. Section 3(a) of the Act, 1957, defines minerals as follows: 3.(a) minerals includes all minerals except mineral oils; 8.2. Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957, defines minor minerals as follows : 3.(e) minor minerals means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral ; 8.3. Section 15 of the Act, 1957, vests power on the State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. Section 15(1) of the Act, 1957, vests power with the State Government to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. As per Section 15(1A) of the Act, 1957, the rules that are made under 15(1) could provide for the matters mentioned in Section 15(1A). Thus, Section 15 of the Act, 1957, is relating to the rule making power of the State Government for the purpose of granting of quarry leases and for fixing the royalty or dead rent, etc., in respect of the removal of the minor minerals. 8.4. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 15 of the Act, 1957, the Tamil Nadu Government made Concession Rules 1959. Under Rules 19 and 22 of the Concession Rules 1959, the petitioners were granted lease to quarry stone in patta lands. 8.5. Rule 36(5)(b) of the Concession Rules 1959 is relevant for the purpose of these cases and the same is extracted hereunder: 36. General restrictions in respect of quarrying operations - (5) .... (b) The quarrying permit-holder or the lessee shall remove, or allow removal and transportation of any mineral from the area where quarrying is permitted only after obtaining bulk transport permit and fascimiled despatch slips in the forms prescribed in Appendices XII, XII-A and XIII, XIII A to these rules from the Officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government, District Collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be. The person who has been permitted to quarry in any area or his men, in turn, shall issue the fascimiled despatch slips to the vehicles used for removal or transportation of the mineral furnishing the particulars in the despatch slips specifically indicating the vehicle number, the quantity of the mineral allowed to be transported by the vehicle by using that despatch slip and the time of issue of the despatch slip to the vehicle. All the vehicles used for transporting any mineral from any area shall be in possession of the individual despatch slips for the quantity of the minerals available in the vehicle at all the times of transportation of the mineral by the vehicles : Provided that the vehicles used for transporting any mineral free of charge for bonafide domestic or agricultural purpose shall have a letter of authorisation from the person for whose use the mineral is intended and the vehicle driver or owner shall be responsible for establishing the bonafide transport of the mineral for such purpose when called upon to do so. 8.6. Rule 36(5)(b) of the Concession Rules 1959 permits the transportation of mineral from quarry site to the stockyard or the crushing unit. 8.7. Appendices XII and XIII are the formats for Transport Permit and Despatch Slip respectively in respect of minor minerals other than minor minerals, namely, building and road construction stones including gravel, ordinary sand, earth and turf and ordinary clay including silt, brick and tile clay. Appendices XII A and XIII A are the formats for Transport Permit and Despatch Slip respectively in respect of minor minerals, namely, building and road construction stones including gravel, ordinary sand, earth and turf and ordinary clay including silt, brick and tile clay. The details relating to remittance of seigniorage fee are contained in the format of Transport Permit. The same shall be retained by the quarry leaseholder. The Despatch Slip is issued to the vehicles that carry the minor minerals. The Despatch Slip contains the details that are stated in Rule 36(5)(b) of the Concession Rules, 1959. 8.8. Rule 36(5)(b) of the Concession Rules, 1959, read with the Transport Permit and the Despatch Slip, as prescribed under this rules, make it clear that the quarry leaseholder is permitted to transport any mineral from the quarry site, only after obtaining transport permit and facsimiled despatch slip in the prescribed forms. The quarry leaseholder shall issue the facsimiled despatch slip to the vehicle used for removal or transportation of the mineral furnishing the particulars in the despatch slips specifically indicating the vehicle number, the quantity of the mineral allowed to be transported by the vehicle by using that despatch slip and the time of issue of the despatch slip to the vehicle, as per the Rule 36(5)(b) of the Concession Rules 1959. Using this transport permit and the despatch slip, the petitioners could transport the quarried stones to their crushing units/stockyards. 8.9. It is the case of the petitioners that since they paid the seigniorage fee for quarrying stone, they need not get any transit pass to transport the different size of crushed stones, including crushed stone powder (M-sand), from crushing unit to any place, after the crushing of the quarried stone to different sizes. 8.10. It is true that there was no regulation/restriction/ prohibition to the quarry lease holders to transport the stones that were crushed into different sizes by them to any place from their crushing units/stockyards, subject to the tax laws of the land. 9.0. But, an important development took place by way of insertion of Section 4(1-A) and Section 23-C to the Act, 1957, by way of Amendment Act 38 of 1999 by the Parliament in order to address the mischief of rampant existence of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals in all parts of the country, for which, the existing legislation had proved inadequate. 9.1. Sections 4(1-A) and 23-C of the Act, 1957, which are relevant for the purpose of these cases, are extracted hereunder: 4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under license of lease - (1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. 23-C. Power of State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals - (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) establishment of check-posts for checking of minerals under transit; (b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the quantity of mineral being transported; (c) regulation of mineral being transported from the area granted under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or a quarrying licence or a permit, in whatever name the permission to excavate minerals, has been given; (d) inspection, checking and search of minerals at the place of excavation or storage or during transit; (e) maintenance of registers and forms for the purposes of these rules; (f) the period within which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority be preferred under any rule made under this section and the fees to be paid therefor and powers of such authority for disposing of such applications; and (g) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30, the Central Government shall have no power to revise any order passed by a State Government or any of its authorised officers or any authority under the rules made under sub-sections (1) and (2). 9.2. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract paragraph 25 of the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148 as hereunder: 25. .... it is important to consider that the provision of Section 23C, as quoted above earlier, provides for conferring power upon the State Government to make Rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. The aforesaid provision inserted by the Act 38 of 1999 by the Parliament was consciously introduced to prevent rampant case of illegal mining, transportation and storage being carried out in different parts of the country for which the existing legislation had proved inadequate. Not only by the acts of such illegal mining the public exchequer was being denied huge amount of revenue, but at the same time it had the effect of degrading the environment. It also had effect of defeating the avowed objectives contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the Constitution of India particularly Articles 39(b), (c), 48-A and other related provisions. The aforesaid amendment has therefore, sought to curtail the aforesaid mischief by a conscious act of Parliament brought into effect from 18.12.1999 by specifically conferring the State Government with powers to frame Rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purpose connected therewith. These powers includes the power of the State Government to frame Rules in respect of the enumerated matters without prejudice to the generality to the power conferred under Section 23C(1). The power was specially conferred upon the State Government in order to enable the State Government as a delegate for control and regulation of the activities relating to the illegal mining, transportation and storage as the State Government is best suited to deal with the local conditions and the problems arising thereof. 9.3. Pursuant to the power granted to the State Governments under Section 23-C(1) of the Act, 1957, the Tamil Nadu Government made rules, namely, the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, (shortly, Prevention Rules, 2011, as stated above). Now, the Prevention Rules, 2011 prohibits the transport of minerals other than sand from one place to another without a valid Transit Pass. In respect of sand, similar rules were incorporated in the Concession Rules, 1959, namely, Rule 38-C regulating the transportation of sand, pursuant to power vested on the State Government under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. 9.4. Before the Prevention Rules, 2011 were made under Section 23-C(1) of the Act, 1957, there was no regulation/restriction/ prohibition to the quarry leaseholders to transport the stones that were crushed into different sizes by them to any place from their crushing unit/stockyard, subject to the tax laws of the land. But the Prevention Rules, 2011 was made by the Tamil Nadu Government regulating transportation of minerals other than sand under Section 23-C(1) of the Act, 1957. 10.0. Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011 defines minerals as follows : 2(xiii) Minerals means all minerals and minor minerals except sand ; 10.1. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the definition of stone, as contained in Rules 36(1)(ii-a) of the Concession Rules, 1959 : 36(1)(ii-a) stone shall mean rough stones including khandas, boulders, size-reduced (broken or crushed) materials including metal jelly, ballasts, mill stones, hand chakais and building and road construction stones other than black, red, pink, grey, green, white or other coloured or multicoloured granites or any other rocks suitable for use as ornamental and decorative stones ; 10.2. If Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011 is read with Rule 36(1)(ii-a) of the Concession Rules, 1959, the crushed stone powder (M-sand) is a mineral. 10.3. Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules 2011 prohibits transportation of mineral, which is akin to Rule 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959, and the Rule 3 is extracted hereunder : 3. Prohibition:(1) No person shall transport or cause to be transported any mineral by any carrier from the place of raising or from the place of stockyard or from one place to another without having a valid transit pass. (2) No person other than the mineral dealer shall store or cause to be stored any mineral at any place for purposes of sale or consumption. (3) No mineral dealer shall store any mineral other than the place specified in the registration certificate granted under these rules : Provided that no person purchasing and transporting minerals for use or consumption by himself and such use or consumption does not involve any commercial activity and any holder of a mining lease or a quarry lease in respect of the minerals for which he holds a lease, shall not be required to register himself as a dealer. 11. The first submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2011, the petitioners, being the quarry leaseholders, are not required to obtain transit pass for transportation of M-sand, if M-sand is considered as mineral under Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011.

12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the proviso only exempts the quarry lease holders from registering themselves as Mineral Dealers under the Prevention Rules, 2011 and thus, they are not burdened with the maintenance of various registers and following of procedures, as contemplated under the Prevention Rules, 2011, for Mineral Dealers. But, according to him, the quarry lease holders also shall have a valid Transit Pass to transport the minerals from one place to another, like a Mineral Dealer.

13. The perusal of Rule 3(1) of the Prevention Rules, 2011 shows that it begins with No Person. That is, rule 3(1) makes it clear that whoever transports any mineral from one place to another should have a valid transit pass. There are three categories of persons contemplated under Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2011, namely, (1) Mineral Dealer ; (2) a person purchasing and transporting mineral for use or consumption by himself and such use or consumption does not involve any commercial activity ; and (3) the quarry leaseholders.

14. While the second and third categories of persons need not register themselves as Mineral Dealers, they should also possess a valid transit pass for transportation of the mineral from one place to another. Requiring to have a Transit Pass is in the nature of regulation with the object of preventing illegal transportation of minerals as contemplated under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the proviso permits the quarry leaseholders to transport the minerals without a transit pass from any place inside or outside the State.

15. On the other hand, I am in entire agreement with the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the quarry leaseholder also shall obtain transit pass under Form F for transporting the crushed stone in different sizes including M-sand to other place, as required under Rule 6 of the Prevention Rules, 2011. The quarry lease holders are only relieved from registering them as Mineral Dealers and thereby they need not maintain the registers that are to be maintained by the Mineral Dealers under the Prevention rules, 2011.

16. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Rule 6 of the Prevention Rules, 2011 and Form F : 6. Transport permit and Transit pass. (1) No person shall transport or otherwise remove or carry away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transit pass from the Deputy Director. Person desiring such passes should file an application before the Deputy Director in Form F duly specifying all the particulars prescribed therein. (2) The application shall be accompanied by a copy of the permit showing payment of royalty / seigniorage on such mineral or other adequate proof of such payment. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), the Deputy Director may grant transit pass in FormF for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by him or may refuse to grant such transit pass for the reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant. (4) Any person who transports the minerals and who is required to carry transit shall produce pass on demand to the authorized officer or any officer or authority who has been empowered under sub-section (4), section 21 of the Act. FORM-F [See rule 6 (1).]. TRANSIT PASS Transit Pass Book No Transit Pass/Serial No. (To be filled by the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining in the District Concerned) 1 Name and address of person registered under this Rule (with registration No.) Registration No.:

2. Place from which mineral is to be transported : S.No.: Village: Taluk : District:

3. Name of Mineral :

4. Quantity (Cbm/Volume) (to be specified) 5 Number and details of transport permit issued by Deputy Director of Geology and Mining indicating payment of Royalty/Seigniorage fee on mineral being transported. Transport permit No.: Date : No.of transit pass issued : Sl.No.From ............ To.................... Signature and Seal of Assistant / Deputy Director. TO BE FILLED UP AT THE TIME OF DESPATCH OF MINERALS FROM THE STOCKYARD6(a) Date and time of Despatch : Date : ........ Time : ........ (b) Name and address of Person who purchased the mineral from the Registree : (c) Destination to which mineral is being transported : (d) Approximate distance to the destination and route : (e) Expected time to reach the destination : (f) Mode of transport : (g) Carrier Registration No.: (h) Name of Vehicle Driver : Signature of Driver Signature of registree with date. with date. Notes:-(1) No over writing should be done (2) The original copy and the book has to be returned to the concerned authority after the book is exhausted. (3) The vehicle driver shall carry two copies of the transit pass during transit.: 16. The transport permit referred to in Form F is the transport permit issued in the Form prescribed under Rule 36(5) (b) of the Concession Rules, 1959, particularly to ascertain that the minerals were removed on the remittance of seigniorage fee.

17. Therefore, the transit pass is different from the transport permit. The transport permit is to transport the quarried minerals from the quarry site to the crushing unit/stockyard. The transit pass is for transporting minerals from the crushing unit or stockyard to any place. The Rules do not totally prohibit the quarry leaseholder from transporting mineral from their stockyard or from the crushing unit to any other place. On the other hand, the rules only regulate by insisting the quarry leaseholder also to have a valid transit pass for transporting minerals, in order to check the illegal mining, transportation, storage of minerals as contemplated under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. 18.0. The reliance placed on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on Article 301 of the Constitution has no merit. In fact, the same issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. While rejecting such a contention, the Division Bench in paragraph 36 of the judgment held that Article 301 does not prohibit the State from regulating the business. The said passage from paragraph 36 of the judgment is extracted hereunder: ".36. ... That the argument that the impugned rule contravenes Articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution is wholly without force. In the case of Atiabari Tea Co.Ltd. Vs. The State of Assam reported in AIR1961SC232 the Constitution bench of five judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by majority held that the restrictions, freedom from which is guaranteed by Article 301, would be such restrictions as directly and immediately restrict or impede the free flow or movement of trade. Regulatory measures or measures imposing compensatory taxes for the use of trading facilities do not come within the purview of restrictions contemplated by Article 301. They are excluded from the purview of provisions of Part-XIII of the Constitution for the simple reason that they do not hamper trade, commerce or intercourse, but rather facilitate them. The aforesaid position was reiterated in the case of Automobile Transport, Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & others by a Constitution Bench of seven judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR1962SC1406". 18.1. The first Bench of this Court in M.Palanisamy V. State of T.N. reported in (2012) 5 MLJ513while dealing with Article 301 of the Constitution that guarantees its citizens the right to freedom of trade throughout the territory of India held in paragraph 20 as hereunder :  20. (ii) Notwithstanding the provision contained in Article 301 of the Constitution, Article 304 grants power to the State Legislatures to make laws with regard to restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse amongst States. 19. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, being the quarry leaseholders, cannot be required to obtain transit pass for transporting the minerals and also that the Prevention Rules, 2011, requiring the petitioners, who are quarry lease holders, to obtain transit pass is opposed to the Article 301 of the Constitution. 20.0. The next submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the Prevention Rules, 2011, is beyond the competency of the rule making power of the State Government under Section 23-C(1) of the Act, 1957. According to him, Rule 23-C vests power with the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals only and not in respect of mineral products. His submission was that the crushed sand powder (M-sand) is not a mineral, but a mineral product. According to him, the quarried stones are subjected to processing, whereby, the stones are crushed and the mineral products are produced and thus, the State cannot prohibit the transportation of such mineral products under the Prevention Rules, 2011 framed under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. The State Government could only regulate transportation of mineral, but not the mineral products. He placed heavy reliance on paras 43 and 48 of the Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148. 20.1. The said submission was countered by the learned Additional Advocate General that stones, that are crushed into different sizes including the crushed stone powder, are only minerals and not mineral products. He relied on Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011 read with Rule 36(1)(ii-a) of the Concession Rules, 1959, to drive home his point. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on paragraph 49 of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand Division Bench in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's case (cited supra).

21. At the outset, I am of the view that if the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel is accepted, then it will defeat the very purpose of insertion of Section 23-C in the Act, 1957. If crushed stone powder is not a mineral, but a mineral product, as contended by the learned Senior counsel, the different sizes of stones that are made during the crushing of the quarried stones are also not mineral, but mineral products. That is, according to the petitioners, a big quarried stone, if split into two or more would lose the character of a mineral and the same is a mineral product. Such a contention would certainly defeat the very purpose of Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, that sought to address the mischief of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.

22. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that the interpretation that advances the object of the legislation has to be preferred for one that could go against the purpose of the legislation.

23. As per the definition of Rule 2(xiii) of the Preventions Rules, 2011, Minerals". means all minerals and minor minerals except sand. Thus, the sand is not covered under the Prevention Rules, 2011. On the other hand, the regulation of transportation of sand is made by the State Government, as per the Rule 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959. That is, while the regulation of transportation of sand is made under Rule 38-C of the Concession Rule, 1959, the regulation of the transportation of minerals other than sand is made under the Prevention Rules, 2011. 24.0. For the purpose of these cases, it is relevant to consider the history of quarrying of sand in the State of Tamil Nadu. From 01.10.2003 onwards, quarrying of sand by private persons has been banned in the State of Tamil Nadu by introducing Rule 38-A in the Concession Rules, 1959 and the same was taken over by the Public Works Department, shortly, PWD. Thereafter, the PWD has been quarrying and selling sand at the quarry site. The sale price includes the value of the sand, quarrying cost, loading cost and seigniorage. There was no prohibition/restriction for transportation of sand so purchased from the PWD within the State or outside the State till 25.08.2008. On 25.08.2008, the Tamil Nadu Government banned transportation of sand covered under Rule 38-A to outside the State of Tamil Nadu, by introducing Rule 38-B of the Concessions Rules, 1959. Rule 38-B was held valid by a Division Bench of this Court, when the same was put to challenge. 24.1. After the take over of quarrying of sand entirely by the PWD, everyone has to purchase sand from the PWD. One can purchase for his own use. One can also purchase sand to sell the same. Such persons could transport the purchased sand from PWD to various places, as they like. But the same was regulated by the Tamil Nadu Government by inserting Rule 38-C to Concession Rules, 1959 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries (MMC2) Department, dated 11.02.2011. 24.2. Rule 38-C contains rules 38-C(1) to 38-C(15). In my considered view, rule 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959, is akin to the Prevention Rules, 2011, which is under consideration in these writ petitions. 24.3. Rule 38-C(1)(a) states that No person shall transport sand without a valid transport permit issued by the PWD or without a sale slip of Licensee duly authenticated by the Taluk Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar of the jurisdiction from which the sand is transported. 24.4. If a person purchased sand from PWD for personal use, a valid transport permit would be issued to him and there is no difficulty. That is, even in those cases, concerned person should have a valid transport permit to take the sand purchased from PWD, in a vehicle. 24.5. The important aspect of Rule 38-C is that Rule 38-C(1)(b) states that no person shall stock sand for sale in any place without a valid licence. That is, persons, who purchase sand from PWD for not their use, but for sale to others, should obtain licence. The Licensee shall issue sale slip to be authenticated by the Taluk Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, as prescribed under the rules, to the purchasers of the sand. The purchasers of the sand from the stockyard of the Licensee should possess a sale slip for transporting the sand from the stockyard to the place of their destinations. 24.6. It is relevant to extract Rule 38-A, B and C of the Concession Rules, 1959, as hereunder : 38-A. Quarrying of sand by the State Government  Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, or any order made or action taken hereunder or any judgment or decree or order of any Court, all existing leases for quarrying sand in Government lands and permissions / leases granted in ryotwari lands shall ceased to be effective on and from the date of coming into force of this Rule and the right to exploit sand in the State shall vest with the State Government to the exclusion of others. The proportionate lease amount for the unexpired period of the lease and the unadjusted seigniorage fee, if any, will be refunded. 38-B. Transport of sand outside the State not to be made  No transport of sand covered under Rule 38-A of these Rules shall be made across the border to other States. 38-C. Storage and transportation of sand  (1)(a) No person shall transport sand without a valid transport permit issued by the Public Works Department or without a sale slip of Licensee duly authenticated by the taluk headquarters Deputy Tahsildar of the jurisdiction from which the sand is transported. (b) No person shall stock sand for sale in any place without a valid licence. (2)(a) No person shall transport sand in any vehicle from the quarry of the Public Works Department without a transport permit issued by the Public Works Department as in Appendix  XVII. (b) No person shall transport sand in any vehicle from the stockyard without the sale slip issued by the Licensee as in Appendix-XVIII and duly authenticated by the taluk headquarters Deputy Tahsildar as in Appendix-XIX. (3) Any person who intends to store sand for sale shall make an application for grant of licence in the Form in Appendix-XX to the District Collector concerned: Provided that if any person who has stored sand for the purpose of sale on the date of coming into force of this Rule shall apply to the District Collector in the said form for grant of licence for the purpose of this Rule within sixty days from the date of coming into force of this Rule. (4) The person who makes an application as in Appendix-XX for the grant of licence, shall remit a non-refundable application fee of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the District Collector concerned. (5) On an application made provided that where the application is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the required documents, the District Collector shall return or by notice require the applicant to supply the omission or furnish the document as the case may be within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of such notice under sub-rule (3). The District Collector may refer the said application to the Assistant Director or the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining concerned in the district for inspection of the area and report. (6) (a) On receipt of inspection report from the Assistant Director or the Deputy Director of Geology and Mining as the case may be, the District Collector may grant a licence in the form in Appendix-XXI or for the reasons recorded in writing, refuse to grant such licence. (b) The District Collector shall pass orders on the application within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that the aforesaid period of thirty days shall be applicable only if the application for licence is complete in all respects. In respect of re-submitted applications, the said period shall be reckoned only from the date of re-submission of such application. (7) The period of licence shall not exceed one year from the date of grant of licence. (8) A licence may be renewed for a period of not exceeding one year from the date of expiry of licence granted under clause (a) of sub-rule (6). The application for renewal shall be submitted thirty days before the date of expiry of licence. The procedure specified for grant of licence and fee shall apply for renewal mutatis mutandis. (9) When the Licensee sells the sand from the stockyard, the Licensee shall submit the original transport permit issued by the Public Works Department to the concerned taluk headquarter Deputy Tahsildar along with the sale slip issued by him. The taluk headquarter Deputy Tahsildar shall affix the seal as in Appendiix-XIX on the quantum of sale slip which is equivalent of the quantum of sand transported with the Public Works Department transport permit slip and also make necessary endorsement on the original transport permit submitted by the Licensee. (10) Every Licensee shall submit a monthly return as in Appendix-XXII to the District Collector before 10th of succeeding month. (11) Non-possession of transport permit or sale slip for transport of the sand shall be construed as illicit transportation of sand. (12) Whenever any person stocks the sand or transport of causes to be transported the sand without any lawful authority, and for that purpose uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such sand, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by the competent authorities and shall also liable for confiscation of the same. For such confiscation, the competent authorities shall make a complaint in this behalf before the competent Court. Before making such complaint, the competent authorities shall obtain specific sanction of the District Collector, for making such a complaint. (13) The taluk headquarter Deputy Tahsildar who authenticates the sale slip shall maintain a day book register, indicating date wise number of authentication made by him, to whom it has been made and the quantum of sand for which sale slips are issued and such other particulars as are required. (14) The taluk headquarter Deputy Tahsildar at the end of each month shall prepare and submit a return on the number of sale slips authenticated, to whom it has been issued and the quantum of sand covered therein to the District Collector concerned and such return shall be submitted before 10th of succeeding month. (15) If any violation of condition of licence is found, the District Collector concerned shall cancel the licence after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Licensee. Explanation  For the purpose of this Rule :- (i) competent authority means the person as authorised under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 ; (ii) stockyard shall mean a place where a Licensee stores the sand purchased from Public Works Department ; (iii) sale slip shall mean an authenticate proof for sale of sand from the stockyard. (iv) sand means ordinary sand used for construction purpose which includes processed and filtered sand other than industrial sands like silica sand or Garnet sand. 24.7. Before the issuance of Rule 38-C, the traders dealing with sand filed a batch of writ petitions before this Court seeking for issuance of writ of Mandamus to forbear the authorities of the respondent State therein from insisting those traders and their customers to obtain transport permit or further sale slip for transportation of the sand to the destination of the purchasers. Those writ petitions were heard by a Full Bench of this Court and those writ petitions were dismissed by the judgment in D.Sivakumar V. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, reported in 2011 (2) L.W. 769 based on the fact that Rule 38-C was incorporated and those traders were given liberty to challenge it. Paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Full Bench in D.Sivakumar's case, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder : 10. In such circumstances, by virtue of the amendment imposing such obligation on the part of the purchasers from the Public Works Department to store it in the stockyard, to obtain further sale slip authenticated by the Taluk Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, the prayer of the petitioners in these writ petitions to forbear the respondents from insisting the petitioners and their customers to obtain transport permit or to get mentioning the final place of destination in the bill issued by the Public Works Department to transport the processed or filtered or raw sand from the stockyard of the petitioners to the place of destination of petitioners' purchasers cannot be granted. If the petitioners have any grievance against the newly introduced Rule 38-C, it is for them to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. 24.8. The Rule 38-C was challenged in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.14180 of 2011 and others and those writ petitions were dismissed by the First Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in M.Palanisamy V. State of T.N., [(2012) 5 MLJ513. 24.9. An identical argument, that is advanced here, was advanced before the Division Bench in the judgment reported in (2012) 5 MLJ513 The petitioners in that batch of cases, who were traders, were dealers in river sand. They contended that the sand purchased from PWD was subjected to further processes by engaging labourers and the sand could not be used directly for construction purposes. It was contended that those writ petitioners processed the purchased sand by manual grading/machine grading for removal of stones, dust, unwanted elements such as shells, gravel, etc., to make the processed sand fit for construction. After the process, 75% of the sand purchased alone would remain fit for construction and the remaining 25% would go waste. The processed sand is graded in such a way that A Grade sand is used for plastering, B Grade sand is used for construction and C Grade sand is used for filling purposes. It was contended that the transportation of processed sand could not be regulated by making rule under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. Their submission was that since the sand was subjected to the aforesaid processes by manual grading or machine grading, the processed sand could not come under the purview of Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, as it was not mineral after the process. The said submission was rejected by the Division Bench. 24.10. In my view, the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Palanisamy V. State of T.N., [(2012) 5 MLJ513, squarely applies to these writ petitions. The Division Bench categorically held in M.Palanisamy's case that after the sand was subjected to processes, as narrated by the writ petitioners therein, it could still be the mineral covered under Rule 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959, and such a rule 38-C of the Concession Rules, 1959, comes under the purview of Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. In these cases, as stated above, an identical argument is advanced by the petitioners that the quarried stones are subjected to processes by crushing it into different sizes and after the crushing, the mineral lost its character and therefore, the Prevention Rules, 2011, is beyond the rule making power of the State Government under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. 24.11. In my view, the quarried stones that are simply crushed into different sizes, could not be treated as a new mineral product, as there is no change in the fundamental nature of the mineral. 24.12. It is a different matter, if the mineral underwent a change in its fundamental nature by becoming a mineral product, then the State could not regulate the transportation of such mineral products by the Rules made under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. But, in these cases, as in the case of the processed sand, stones, namely, crushed stones, do not undergo a change in its fundamental nature making it a mineral product. In my view, crushed stones are also minerals and hence, the Prevention Rules, 2011, are validly made under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957 for the purpose of addressing the mischief of rampant existence of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. 25.0. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the Division Bench judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148 would not render any assistance to the petitioners. On the other hand, the judgment upheld the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, by holding that the same was validly made under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. The said Rules are similar to the Prevention Rules, 2011. Thus, the judgment, in fact, supports the case of the State. 25.1. In the case in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148, the validity of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, framed under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, by the Jharkhand Government, was challenged before the Jharkhand High Court. These rules sought to regulate transportation, storage, buying, selling, trading etc., of minerals. These rules have been challenged by the persons involved in the ".MICA". business. The challenge was made on various grounds. 25.2. Those grounds are (i) the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007 were framed in the field occupied by the existing State legislation being Bihar Mica Act, 1947 and Bihar Mica Rules, 1948 and hence, the same is bad ; (ii) The impugned rules therein are violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 ; (iii) The Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, are violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India ; (iv) The Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, were not placed before the Legislative Assembly as required under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1957; and (v) The impugned rules therein were also assailed on the ground that the Rules are framed in excess of the delegated power conferred under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. 25.3. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Rule 2 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, as hereunder : ".Rule 2:- Definitions: (f) ".Dealer". means any person who carries on the business of buying , storing, selling, supplying, trading, transporting, distributing or delivering for sale of minerals and mineral products and includes the following: (a) persons, who buy and process mineral or mineral products for sale or for utilization for their own purposes beyond any lease area; and (b) Any person , who holds a mining lease granted under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960- or the Jharkhand Minor Mineral concession Rules, 2004 issued by the Government, framed under the ". Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; (k) ".Mineral' means, minerals of all types (except the atomic minerals enlisted in part B of Schedule-I of Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and varieties including precious and semiprecious and un-cut stones and minor minerals as specified in Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act, 67 of 1957) for the purpose of these Rules. Explanation: Any mineral shall not cease to be a mineral by reason of being subjected to any process like crushing, burning, breaking, drying , cutting, polishing, pulverising or any other procedure intended to make the mineral fit or suitable for sale or consumption. 25.4. Rule 3 of the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, is also relevant and Rule 3 is extracted hereunder : ".Rule 3:- Prohibition (1) All dealer shall register themselves as dealers under the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand as per the procedure mentioned in the following Rules. (2) No person other than a dealer or a mining lease holder shall buy or sell or offer for sale or engage in any transaction of buying and selling any mineral at any place or transport mineral for purposes of sale or consumption without being registered as a dealer. Provided that no person purchasing and transporting minerals for use or consumption by himself, (where such use or consumption does not involve any commercial activity) and any holder of a mining lease in respect of the minerals for which he holds a lease shall be required to register himself as dealer.". 25.5. While answering to the ground that the Jharkhand Minerals Dealers Rules, 2007, are made in excess of the delegated power of the State Government, the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148 upheld the Rules by reading down the rules in such a way and declaring that the provisions of the impugned rules therein shall not apply so far as the mineral products are concerned. 25.6. After considering various judgments of the Apex Court relating to the doctrine of severability, the Division Bench ultimately came to the following conclusion in the following passage in paragraph 45 of the judgment in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's case (cited supra) and upheld the Rules : 45. ..... The doctrine of reading down is now a well settled tool to uphold the vires of statute or a subordinate legislation by reading down the provisions which are either ultra vires the legislative competence of the legislature in question or are ultra vires the Parent Act under which the rules have been framed or do offend the other provisions of the Constitution and the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. This Court therefore by relying upon the aforesaid tool declares that the provisions of the impugned rules shall not apply so far as the subject of minerals product are concerned while upholding the vires of the aforesaid Rules of 2007 on other grounds of challenge. 25.7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on paragraphs 43 and 48 of the said judgment. It is relevant to extract paragraph 43 of the judgment in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's case (cited supra), which reads as follows:

43. That the impugned rules, however, also tend to regulate such activities like transportation, storage, possession, buying, storing, selling, trading etc. not only in relation to the minerals but also in relation to the mineral products. However, minerals products are not contemplated in the Parent Act or even in the provision of Section 23C. The enabling Section 23C do not provide for the definition of mineral product nor does the impugned rule provides thereof. The expression mineral product has a very wide connotation as the very nature of the mineral changes because of certain processes whether it be manufacturing process resulting into a totally new and different product which is not defined in the Act or the Rules. Obviously, the M.M.D.R Act or Section 23C thereof has at no place purported to regulate the minerals products under the scheme of the Act. The impugned Rules therefore appear to go beyond the scope of the powers conferred under Section 23C to also regulate the activities contemplated under the impugned rules so far as minerals products are concerned.". 25.8. The highlighted portion in paragraph 43 of the judgment makes it very clear that only when the very nature of the mineral changes because of certain processes and resulted in the mineral product, then only the State would have no power to regulate such mineral product under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. 25.9. It is also relevant to extract paragraph 48 of the judgment in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's case (cited supra), which reads as follows : ".48. In view of the detailed discussions made herein above, in order to summarize, it is held that the challenge to the impugned Rules on the grounds of lack of legislative competence on a field occupied by a State Legislature are without substance. The writ petitioners have also failed to make a case of violation of the Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India or as to any infringement of Articles 301 or 304 of the Constitution. These Rules are within the purview of the delegated power conferred upon the State Government under Section 23C of the MMDR Act and are intra vires the Parent Act i.e. M.M.D.R Act except to the provisions relating to the ".Mineral Products". as indicated hereinabove and as such the provisions of the impugned Rules shall not apply to the ".Mineral Products.". The impugned Rules have otherwise been validly framed in order to suppress the mischief of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. Jharkhand being a immensely mineral rich state, these rules are required to be enforced with full force and rigour to fulfill the aims and object of the legislation. 25.10. The highlighted portion in paragraph 48 of the judgment makes it very clear that the Rules made under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, shall apply to minerals and shall not apply only to mineral products. 25.11. The Division Bench read down the rules in such a way that the rules impugned therein shall not apply insofar as the mineral products are concerned. Since I have come to the conclusion in paragraphs 24.11 and 24.12 of this judgment that the crushed stone including stone powder is not a mineral product, but only a mineral, as there is no change in the fundamental nature of the mineral, the said judgment does not render any assistance to the petitioners, and on the other hand, the judgment supports the case of the State. 25.12. Furthermore, the following passage in paragraph 49 of the judgment in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's case is very relevant for these cases, wherein, the Division Bench has categorically held that the question as to whether a mineral remains a mineral or has undergone a change in its fundamental nature into a mineral product is a question of fact to be determined in each individual case, which is extracted hereunder : 49. .... Whether a mineral remains a mineral or has undergone a change in its fundamental nature into a mineral product is a question of fact to be determined in each individual case by the competent authority under the Act and the Rules. .....". 25.13. In all these cases that are under consideration, I categorically found that the mineral, namely, the quarried stone does not undergo a change in its fundamental nature to treat the same as a mineral product, when the same is crushed. Hence, I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Prevention Rules, 2011, is beyond the competency of the rule making power of the State Government under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. Let me now consider the decisions cited by both sides. 26.0. Judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners :

26. 1. The first two judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, namely, (1) unreported judgment of this Court dated 20.06.2000 in W.P.No.18523 of 1998 (Trichy District Half Body-Lorry Owners Association rep. by its Secretary Vs. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy and others) ; and (2) unreported judgment of this Court dated 21.02.2007 in W.P.No.6212 of 2007 (Sri Ganesh Murugan Blue Metals rep. by its Proprietor M.Gunasekaran Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkakl and others), were rendered by this Court long before the Prevention Rules, 2011, was made by the Tamil Nadu Government. Hence, those judgments have no relevance for these cases. At that time, there was no regulation/restriction for transportation of minerals from one place to another. 26.2.0. The third judgment, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is the judgment of the Apex Court in Tej Bahadur Dube (Dead) by LRs Vs. Forest Range Officer F.S. (S.W.), Hyderabad, reported in (2003) 3 SCC122 26.2.1. That case arose out of the Andhra Pradesh Sandlewood and Red Sanderswood Transit Rules, 1969, read with the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. 26.2.2. The appellant therein was a licensee to transport sandalwood as defined under Section 2(o) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. A criminal prosecution was launched against the appellant for transporting sandalwood products. The Trial Court acquitted him on the ground that there was no requirement of law to obtain any permit for transportation of finished sandalwood products. 26.2.3. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. A direction was issued to confiscate the transported material. The High Court took a contrary view that even the sandalwood products required transit permit. 26.2.4. The appellant therein approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that there is no requirement in law to obtain transit permit for transporting sandalwood products and one should possess transit permit for transportation of sandalwood in its original form or chips and sandalwood powder. The Apex Court held that the view taken by the High Court was an erroneous one, in the absence of any specific rules or provisions in the act requiring transit permit for transportation of sandalwood products. 26.2.5. In my view, the said judgment, instead of supporting the case of the petitioners, supports the case of the State, as held in paragraph 6 of the judgment. Paragraph 6 of the judgment in Tej Bahadur Dube (Dead) by LRs Vs. Forest Range Officer F.S. (S.W.), Hyderabad, reported in (2003) 3 SCC122is extracted hereunder : ".6. As noticed above, the original appellant was a holder of a licence to deal in and stock sandalwood. From the material on record, it is seen that the said appellant had obtained necessary permit from the competent authorities for converting the sandalwood purchased by him into various types of handles which is ultimately used in other sandalwood handicrafts which permission was valid upto 31st of December, 1982 period covering the period of seizure. The appellant had contended that it is pursuant to the said permission he had converted the sandalwood pellets into handles to be used in the other sandalwood artifacts and he had informed the concerned authorities about such conversion as per Ex.P-18 to P-27. It is also the case of the appellant that converted sandalwood artifacts or parts thereof do not require any transit permit and it is only sandalwood in its original form or chips and powder of sandalwood which requires a transit permit. The trial Court has agreed with this submission of the appellant. We also notice under the Rules and the Act what is prohibited is the transportation of sandalwood as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act and not sandalwood products which have been converted into such products after obtaining proper permission from the authorities. Such converted sandalwood product under the Rules do not require any transit permit. We say so because Rules referred to in these proceedings do not contemplate such transit permit and the respondents have not produced any other Rules to show such transit permit is required. On the contrary, the respondent argues that even converted sandalwood products require transit permit because they remained to be sandalwood as contemplated under Section 2(o) of the Act. In the absence of any specific Rules or provisions in the Act to this effect, we are unable to agree with this argument. We are of the opinion once sandalwood is subjected to certain process from which a sandalwood product is lawfully obtained, then such product ceases to be sandalwood as understood in Section 2(o) of the Act.". 26.2.6. Thus, the Apex Court has categorically held that transit permit is required only for transportation of sandalwood in its original form or sandalwood powder. If the sandalwood that was subjected to certain process became sandalwood product, it ceased to be sandalwood and no transit pass is required for such sandalwood products. 26.2.7. In these cases under consideration, I have already come to the categorical conclusion that the quarried stone, that was subjected to the process of crushing, becomes crushed stones including stone powder and the same is only a mineral and not a mineral product. Therefore, the Prevention Rules, 2011, are validly made under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, requiring all the persons transporting the minerals to obtain the transit pass for the purpose of addressing the mischief of rampant existence of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. 26.3.0. The next judgment, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, is the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Novel Granites Ltd. V. Government of Andhra Pardesh, reported in AIR2009Andhra Pradesh 107. 26.3.1. Most of the petitioners therein were industrial units involved in the processing and pulverizing of mineral and some of the petitioners were lessees to extract minerals. 26.3.2. The Andhra Pradesh Government made Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000 under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. The petitioners therein questioned the explanation to Rule 2(1)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000. According to the petitioners therein, it is beyond the power of the State Government to regulate the processed mineral and the mineral products. It was their case that the explanation expanded the scope of mineral as defined under the Act, 1957. Their plea was that the rule making power of the State Government under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957 is only confined to the pre-processed mineral. The same was found acceptance by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 26.3.3. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the definition of Mineral under Rule 2(1)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rule, 2000 as hereunder : ".2.(1)(h). Mineral means, minerals of all types and varieties including precious and semi-precious and uncut stones and minor minerals as specified in Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957) for the purposes of these rules. Explanation :- Minerals shall not cease to be minerals by reason of being subjected to any process like crushing burning, breaking, drying, cutting, polishing, pulverizing or any other procedure intended to make the mineral fit or suitable for sale or consumption. 26.3.4. At the outset, with due respect, I disagree with the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High court in Novel Granites's case, since the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Palanisamy Vs. State of T.N., reported in (2012) 5 MLJ513 26.3.5. Mere processing of mineral without converting it into mineral product, could not take away the right of the State to regulate those processed minerals, particularly, when there is no change in the fundamental nature of the minerals took place in the process, as held by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the judgment in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's case (cited supra). It is a different matter that if a mineral product emerged after certain processes changing the very nature of the mineral, then the same cannot be regulated under the Rules framed under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. But the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court went to the extent of holding that the State can regulate only pre-processed minerals and once the process has taken place, the State has no power to regulate it under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, even if mineral product does not emerge pursuant to the process. 26.3.6. In that judgment, no particular mineral was involved and no particular process was discussed. It was laid down in a general manner. 26.3.7. Clause (d) of paragraph 40 of the judgment in Novel Granites's case, presumes that there is a change of character of the mineral after it undergoes the process of pulverization. Pulverization is crushing of the mineral. In my view, the presumption has no basis. It is a different matter, if due to the process, a new mineral product emerged changing the very nature of the mineral. 26.3.8. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment in Novel Granites's case is extracted hereinbelow : 40. The following ratio could be culled out from the various judicial precedents referred to above: a) The word 'Mineral' is judicially interpreted, more than it is statutorily defined. b) The word 'Mineral' is not a term of art, but required to be understood in common parlance depending upon the context in which it is used. c) The word 'Mineral' understood in common parlance is an inorganic substance found either on or in the earth, which may be garnered or exploited for profit and d) The mineral changes its character after it undergoes process such as pulverization. 26.3.9. At the risk of repetition, I would like to reiterate again that if a big quarried stone is split into two or three or crushed into powder, then it could not be stated that there is a change in the fundamental nature of the mineral. If after the mineral is subjected to processes, a mineral product emerged changing the fundamental nature of the mineral, then it is a different matter. Even if the simple process has brought in a total change in the fundamental nature of the mineral, then also it is a different matter. In these cases, as already stated, Rule 36(1)(ii-a) of the Concession Rules, 1959 makes it clear that crushed stone in different sizes including crushed stone powder is a mineral and not a mineral product. If it is held that the crushed stone and stone powder are mineral products, the same would defeat the very object of insertion of Section 23-C in the Act, 1957. 26.3.10. Before 23-C was inserted in the Act, 1957, the State had a limited power under Section 15 of the Act, 1957, relating to the regulation of the granting of lease in respect of quarrying of minor minerals etc. Now, taking into account, the rampant existence of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and leaving nothing to our future generation, Sections 4(1-A) and 23-C were inserted in the Act, 1957 to protect our nature and its resources. 26.3.11. However, it is not my endeavour to judicially expand the scope of the rule making power of the State Government by adding mineral product in the Rules. But I am, with great respect, in disagreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Novel Granites's case, in holding that the pre-processed mineral alone could be regulated by the State Government under Andhra Pradesh Mineral Dealers Rules, 2000, framed under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. 26.3.12. The learned Single Judge, while holding at the end of paragraph 41 in Novel Granites's case, that the mineral products cannot be regulated by the State Government, but held in paragraph 42 of the judgment in Novel Granites's case that mere processing would take away the right of the State to have a regulation over the same. The relevant portions in paragraphs 41 and 42 read thus : ".41. .... But the explanation, which is added by the amendment taken within its sweep not only the raw mineral but also the product derived from such raw mineral after it undergoes process such as crushing, burning, breaking, drying, cutting, polishing, pulverizing or any other procedure intended to make the mineral fit or suitable for sale or consumption. In effect, the impugned explanation has added to the definition products manufactured from out of the mineral garnered or exploited.

42. ..... Even if these rules clauses are interpreted in the widest terms, it is not possible to understand them as empowering the State Governments to make Rules regulating the minerals after they underwent process such as polishing, cutting, burning, pulverizing etc. .....". 26.3.13. In paragraph 45 of the judgment in Novel Granites's case, the learned Judge has held in certain terms that the Legislative intent behind Section 23-C is to confine the power on the State Government to make rules at the pre-processed stage of the mineral. I am not in agreement with the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Novel Granites's case that the power under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, will confine to regulate the pre-processed mineral only. I am of the considered view that mere processing of mineral is not sufficient to take away the regulatory power of the State Government under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957 and it should be established that the process resulted in a mineral product with a change in the fundamental nature of the mineral, to come out of the purview of the Rules made under Section 23-C of the Act, 1957. The said view of the learned Judge is opposed to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Palanisamy V. State of T.N., reported in (2012) 5 MLJ513and also the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Bihar MICA Exporters Association V. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR2012Jharkhand 148. 26.3.14. It is relevant to extract paragraph 45 of the judgment in Novel Granites's case as hereunder : 45. The three stages, namely, excavation, transport and storage, which alone find mention in Section 23-C, confine the area of rule making power only to control the illicit mining, storage and transportation of mineral. The Legislative intent behind this is very clear, namely, to confine the State Governments rule making power to the pre-processed stage of mineral in conformity with the definition of mineral in Section 3(a) of the Act and as understood by applying common parlance doctrine by the Courts in various decisions referred to above. To attribute any other intention to the Parliament would only lead to anomalous situations. 26.3.15. Hence, I have no hesitation to reject the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Prevention Rules, 2011, shall confine to the pre-processed minerals only. 26.4. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Bihar MICA Exporters Association's Case (cited supra), is dealt with in extenso in the earlier portion of this judgment and therefore, no separate discussion is required. 27.0. Judgments relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General :

27. 1. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the judgment of the Apex Court to drive home the point that the word mineral was given a very wide meaning by the Apex Court. 27.2. In Banarsi Dass Chadha V. Delhi Administration, reported in (1978) 4 SCC11 the issue that arose was as to whether the brick-earth was a minor mineral. The appellant therein contended that brick-earth was not a mineral and therefore, it could not be a minor mineral also. According to the appellant, the brick-earth is not found in the definition of minor mineral. This argument was rejected by the Apex Court. The following passage in paragraph 4 of the judgment makes it clear that a wide definition was given to the word mineral : 4. We agree with the learned Counsel that a substance must first be a mineral before it can be notified as a minor mineral pursuant to the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(e) of the Act. The question, therefore, is whether brick-earth is a mineral. The expression ".Minor Mineral". as defined in Section 3(e) includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary sand'. If the expression ".minor mineral". as defined in Section 3(e) of the Act includes 'ordinary clay' and `ordinary sand', there is no reason why earth used for the purpose of making bricks should not be comprehended within the meaning of the word ".any other mineral". which may be declared as a ".minor mineral". by the Government. The word ".mineral". is not a term of art. It is a word of common parlance, capable of a multiplicity of meaning depending upon the context. For example the word is occasionally used in a very wide sense to denote any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable. ..... 27.3. Likewise, the following passage from paragraph 7 of the judgment makes it clear that the word mineral has a variety of meanings : 7. ..... That is why we say the word mineral has no definite meaning but has a variety of meanings, depending on the context of its use. .... 27.4. Therefore, I am in entire agreement with the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the crushed stone in all forms shall be taken as a mineral to advance the purpose of the legislation, namely, Section 23-C of the Act, 1957, and the Prevention Rules, 2011 framed under the said provision. In fact, Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011 read with Rule 361 (ii-a) of the Concession Rules, 1959, also makes it clear that crushed stone including stone powder is a mineral. 27.5. The other judgments, namely, the judgment of the Full Bench in D.Sivakumar V. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri, reported in (2011) 2 L.W. 769 and the judgment of the Division Bench in M.Palanisamy V. State of T.N. reported in (2012) 5 MLJ513 relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General, are dealt with in extenso in 24.7 and 27.10 of this judgment. Hence, no further discussion on those judgments is necessary. 27.6. The another unreported judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is dated 20.06.2012 in W.P.(MD)No.2997 of 2011 (G.Karthikeyan V. The Secretary to Government, Mines and Minerals, Secretariat, Chennai and others), wherein I held that the crushed stone is also a mineral taking into account Rule 36 1(ii-a) of the Concessions Rules, 1959 read with Rule 2(xiii) of the Prevention Rules, 2011.

28. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. 26..06..2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes gg To 1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

2. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. D.HARIPARANTHAMAN , J.

gg Common Order in W.P.Nos.30131 to 30135 of 2012, 30617 and 33332 of 2012 M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 in each W.P. 26..06..2014