2009 (4) TMI 1027 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 38(B) under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of Rule 38(B) under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. Application of Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
4. Interpretation of the term "regulation" in Section 23-C.
5. Environmental impact and public interest considerations.
6. Doctrine of Public Trust.
7. Relationship between Rule 38-A and Rule 38-B.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Rule 38(B) under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution:
The court examined Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution, which relate to the freedom of trade and the power of the State Legislature to impose restrictions. It was contended that Rule 38(B) violates Article 301 by restricting trade and commerce without the President's sanction as required under Article 304. However, the court held that Rule 38(B) was introduced under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as a delegate of Parliament, and not under Article 304. Thus, the procedure under Article 304 does not apply, and the rule does not violate Articles 301 and 304.

2. Validity of Rule 38(B) under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957:
The petitioners argued that Section 15 of the Act does not empower the State to prohibit the transport of sand outside the State. The court noted that previous judgments cited by the petitioners did not consider Section 23-C, which allows the State to make rules preventing illegal mining, transportation, and storage of minerals. The court concluded that Rule 38-B is valid as it derives power from Section 23-C.

3. Application of Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957:
The petitioners argued that Section 23-C only applies to illegal mining, transportation, and storage. The court disagreed, stating that the terms "transportation" and "storage" are distinct and not limited to illegal activities. The court referenced a similar case from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which upheld a rule prohibiting the movement of sand across state borders. The court held that Section 23-C empowers the State to regulate the transport and storage of minerals, including sand.

4. Interpretation of the term "regulation" in Section 23-C:
The petitioners contended that "regulation" should not mean "prohibition." The court cited Supreme Court judgments stating that the term "regulation" can include prohibition when public interest is involved. The court held that the prohibition on transporting sand outside the State is a valid regulatory measure in the public interest.

5. Environmental impact and public interest considerations:
The court emphasized the environmental damage caused by indiscriminate sand mining, including the deepening of river beds, depletion of groundwater, and ecosystem degradation. The court noted that the rule aims to prevent such damage and protect the environment, which is a fundamental right under Article 21. The court held that the rule is justified from an environmental perspective.

6. Doctrine of Public Trust:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's principle that natural resources are held in trust for future generations. The court held that the State has a duty to conserve and protect natural resources, including sand, for the benefit of future generations. The rule aligns with this doctrine by preventing over-exploitation.

7. Relationship between Rule 38-A and Rule 38-B:
The court noted that Rule 38-B is a natural extension of Rule 38-A, which was introduced to regulate sand mining based on expert recommendations and upheld by the Supreme Court. Rule 38-B aims to further control the transport of sand to prevent environmental damage and ensure sustainable use.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of Rule 38-B. The rule was found to be constitutional, within the powers granted by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and justified by environmental and public interest considerations. The court emphasized the importance of conserving natural resources for future generations and the State's duty to regulate their use.