Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 423 - HC - Indian LawsImport of sand/river sand - licence, permit, transport slip, etc., under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - N/N. 97 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 - the petitioner failed to prove that the river sand imported by the petitioner does not contain any metal as prescribed under Chapter 26 and hence, the same has to be chemically analysed to ensure that it does not contain any hazards or heavy metals, etc., in public interest. Held that: - the scope of Rules 38-A, 38-B and 38-C was to regulate the quarrying of minor minerals, including sand and regulate the stocking, transportation and sale of such quarried minor minerals, within the State of Tamil Nadu. After introduction of Rule 38-A, the mining activity is to be done only by the Public Works Department and when a person purchases sand from the Department, he has to obtain a licence for storage and transportion. The Rules does deal with the imported sand, be it ordinary sand or silica sand or any other form or for the matter of fact, it cannot deal as because in the first place, the Rules did not deal with the import, the Rules were framed in 1959 and the permission to import with a Plant Quarantine Certificate has been accorded in 2014. Also, The introduction of Rules 38-A, 38-B and 38-C did not alter the original position. The conditions prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011 cannot be imposed on the importers. The word 'import' used in Rule 7 is applicable in cases of minerals imported from other States as there is only a ban in movement of sand from one State to another. Similarly, the Rules came into force in 2011 and therefore, it cannot be extended to an import permitted by the import policy of the year 2012 and revised by the notification dated 07.11.2014 issued by the Department of Director General of Trade and Finance to obtain a Plant Quarantine Certificate, under the Regulations which though was in vogue in 2003 itself. When in a case of a prospecting or mining operation given under a license or lease such a restriction could be made, Section 23-C should necessarily be construed giving power to the State Government to control and regulate the movement of the minerals", rejected the contention of the appellant. The restriction contemplated under Section 38-B would apply when either the licencee moves the goods without the Form or is in possession of excess quantity of mineral, mined or purchased and in case of movement with the Form, moves the goods elsewhere or stocks it at a place other than the authorised stock yard. This Court feels, that the State will keep the public interest as paramount rather than any other interest and raise to the emergent occasion to protect and preserve the natural resources and environment of the State, which in turn, would pave way for a better life to our future generations. Petition allowed.
|