Summary
The Court upheld the invalidation of Gujarat’s blanket prohibition on transporting legally excavated sand outside the State. The rule-making powers concerning mineral concessions and prevention of illegal mining did not authorize that ban, which also infringed the constitutional freedom of inter-State trade.
Issues
- Whether Sections 15 and 23C authorized prohibition of outward movement of legally excavated sand.
- Whether the impugned rules were consistent with Part XIII of the Constitution.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(1) and (1A), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957The power concerned grant and regulation of mineral concessions and did not extend to the challenged control over sale and transport of already legally excavated minerals. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- Section 23C read with Section 4(1A), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957The prevention power concerning transportation and storage was construed in the context of illegal mining; it did not authorize this blanket ban on transport of legally mined sand. (¶¶ 9, 11, 41, 42)
- Rule 44-BB; Rule 71, Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966; Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010The prohibitions applied even to vehicles carrying valid royalty passes or delivery challans. Their invalidation as beyond delegated authority and contrary to constitutional trade freedom was affirmed. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 47, 48)
- Articles 301, 302, 303 and 304, Constitution of IndiaThe State’s executive rule could not evade the constitutional checks governing restrictions on inter-State trade. The ban was inconsistent with the economic-integration purpose of Part XIII. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 46)
Held
- The scope of regulation depends on statutory purpose and context. Decisions permitting restrictions linked to grant of leases, exploitation and conservation did not authorize a prohibition on sale outside the State of minerals already excavated legally. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- Transportation and storage in Section 23C take their meaning from prevention of illegal mining. The provision did not supply authority to prohibit movement of legally excavated sand backed by valid permission. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- Part XIII combines trade freedom with constitutional checks on permissible restrictions and differentiation. The impugned State rules imposed a prohibition under a mining statute rather than through a constitutionally permissible trade restriction. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 46)
- The State remained able to restrict the quantum excavated. That did not permit it, once lawful excavation was allowed, to impose the challenged inter-State movement ban. The relied-on study addressed export outside India, not movement within India. (¶¶ 46, 47)
- The conflicting Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Court views were not approved; the Gujarat High Court’s invalidation was affirmed. (¶ 48)
Result
State appeals dismissed; Gujarat High Court judgment striking down the impugned restrictions affirmed.