2003 (1) TMI 735 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
2. Validity of the penalty imposed by the respondent.
3. Applicability of Section 21(4) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
4. Legality of the detention of the granite block and vehicle.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959:
The petitioner argued that the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, are not applicable since the granite block originated from Kerala and was being transported to Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner had a valid quarrying lease and transport permit issued by the Kerala authorities. The court noted that the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules extend only to the State of Tamil Nadu and do not apply to minerals originating from another state and being transported inter-state. Therefore, the respondent lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty and detain the granite block under these rules.

Validity of the Penalty Imposed by the Respondent:
The respondent imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,78,662, which included the cost of minerals and five times the seigniorage fee, on the premise that the granite was illicitly quarried and transported without a valid despatch slip as required under Tamil Nadu Rules. However, the court found that the petitioner had provided all necessary documents, including a bulk permit, cash memorandum, and sales tax documents, which confirmed the legality of the transport. The court concluded that the penalty imposed was without jurisdiction and authority, as the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules did not apply to the consignment.

Applicability of Section 21(4) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957:
The respondent also relied on Section 21(4) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, to justify the seizure and penalty. However, the court clarified that Section 21(4) does not apply to the facts of this case since the granite was not quarried within Tamil Nadu but was being transported inter-state from Kerala to Andhra Pradesh. The court emphasized that the State Government's rule-making power under Section 15 of the Act is limited to regulating quarry leases within its own state and does not extend to minerals originating from another state.

Legality of the Detention of the Granite Block and Vehicle:
The court found that the detention of the granite block and vehicle was illegal and without valid reason. Despite the petitioner providing all necessary documents and the Kerala authorities confirming the validity of the transport permit, the respondent proceeded as if the granite was of Tamil Nadu origin. The court noted that the entire action of the respondent was based on a misconception of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the bank guarantee furnished for the release of the vehicle and granite block.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order of the respondent, declaring it illegal and without jurisdiction. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to release the bank guarantee within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The connected WMP was closed, and no costs were imposed.