Madras High Court
The Registrar (Judicial) vs The District Collector on 12 February, 2021
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 11.11.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)Nos.20903 of 2016, 23452, 24495, 17370 and 18035 of 2019
W.P(MD)No.20903 of 2016
The Registrar (Judicial),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
[Petitioner substituted vide order dated 11.11.22019]
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Assistant Director [Mines and Minerals]
Collectorate Campus,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
5.Sankar
6.Guna
7.Elango
8.Suresh Kananan
9.Kannan
10.P.Saravanan .... Respondents
[R -10 impleaded vide order, dated 14.10.2019
in W.M.P(MD)No.179000 of 2019]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
prevent the illegal quarrying of Sand in Elanthaikootam Village and other
surrounding villages and consequential direction to seize the equipment used
for illegal and indiscriminate quarrying and transporting the sand.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Murugesan
For Respondents : Mrs.Narmadasampath
Nos.1 - 4 Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.1370 of 2019
S.M.A.Pon Gandhimathi Nathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department [PWD],
Water Resources Organisation,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 05.
3.The Commissioner,
Department of Geology and Mining,
Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 32.
4.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Assistant Director,
Department of Geology and Mining,
Collectorate, Thoothukudi District.
6.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department [PWD],
Water Resource Organisation,
Thamiarabarani River Water Basin
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District – 2.
7.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department [PWD]
Water Resource Organisation,
Thamirabarani River Water Basin,
Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.4 to
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
7, from issuing permission order for taking savudu and gravel soil at
Thoothukudi District as per G.O.Ms.No.50 (Industries MMC.1) Department),
dated 27.04.2017 without conducting scientific and technical research of the
soil and consequently directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to
desilt 53 tanks and channels as per the list provided in the typed set of papers
coming under the Srivaikundam Anicut, Thoothukudi District by considering
the representation, dated 28.08.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For Respondents : Mrs.Narmadasampath
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.18035 of 2019
P.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thirumangalam,
Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thirupprankundram Taluk,
Madurai District.
4.The Executive Engineer,
Periyar Vaigai River Drain Basin,
Public Works Department,
Madurai.
5.The Block Development Officer,
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
Thirupparankundram Block,
Madurai District.
6.The Assistant Director,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Madurai.
.... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take
necessary actions over the representation of the petitioner dated 09.08.2019 and
regularise the desilting of water bodies by curbing illegal quarrying of soil by
virtue of permissions issued under Section 12(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Minor
Minerals Concessions Rules, 1959.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gururaj
For Respondents : Mrs.Narmadasampath
Nos.1-4 Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
No.5 Government Advocate
W.P(MD)No.23452 of 2019
Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.Chellapandi .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
passed by the 1st respondent through his proceedings in M2/290/2019, dated
21.10.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel,
for Mr.C.Jeganathan
For Respondents : Mrs.Narmadasampath
Nos.1 to 4 Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
No.5 Government Advocate
W.P(MD)No.24495 of 2019
Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.K.R.Venkatachalam ....Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent to
grant permission to any one for taking gravel in Survey NO.69, Sangusamuthira
Kanmoi, situated at Kalanivasal Group, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh,
For Respondents : Mrs.Narmadasampath
Nos.1 to 4 Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.A.Thiyagarajan,
No.5 Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.] These writ petitions are filed as Public Interest Litigations on the ground that there are illegal and rampant sand quarry activities taking place under the guise of savudu quarries. Since the issue in all these writ petitions revolves around the sand / savudu sand quarries, these writ petitions have been tagged together, taken up for hearing and disposed of by way of this common order.
2.The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.20903 of 2016 was originally filed by one Nagendiran of Siddharkottai, Ramanathapuram Taluk and District stating that his village is situated 800 metres away from the East Coast, there are large number of sand deposits in his village and in the adjacent villages, namely, Jameendaar Valasi, Elanthiakoottam, Elanthaikoottam Yadav Kudiyiruppu, Tamilarvadi, Samathuvapuram, Sitharkottai, Vaalur, Mudiveeranpattinam, Poosari Nagar and Nethaji Nagar. The private respondents shown in the writ petition are said to have been quarrying those sand deposits with the help of the official respondents, as savudu quarries.
3.In this writ petition, when the matter has been taken up for hearing on 03.11.2016, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram submitted a http://www.judis.nic.in 7/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch report, dated 01.11.2016, wherein it is stated that the private respondent / 5th respondent has obtained savudu lease, but he has violated all the terms and conditions of the lease granted and removed savudu sand, more than the permitted quantity and therefore, they have contemplated action as per Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 [Hereinafter shall be referred to as TNMMCR,1959]. The Photographs filed by the petitioner before this Court would disclose that this quarry must be a sand quarry and not otherwise. Though the respondents claimed action has been contemplated, there is no reference as to the penalty imposed.
4.The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.17370 of 2019 has been filed contending that without scientific and and technical study of soil / earth, permissions have been given to desilt 53 tanks and channels in Srivaikundam Anicut, Thoothukudi District and in that process unauthorised and illegal quarrying of sand is taking place and the excavated sand is sold for commercial purposes. It is further stated that the Industries (MMC.1) Department, vide G.O(MS)No.50, dated 27.04.2017 made certain amendments to Rule 12(2)(A)
(a) of TNMMCR, 1959 and it deals with the removal of soil / earth for domestic and agricultural purposes. However, permission has been granted by the official respondents, for other commercial purposes in respect of 89 tanks located in the district. In this connection, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated http://www.judis.nic.in 8/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch 28.08.2018, which has not been acted upon and hence, this writ petition.
5.The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.18035 of 2019, is filed by the sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly, representing Madurai Constituency, stating that under the garb of granting permission for desilting water bodies, the conditions, rules and regulations and the relevant provisions of law have been given a total go-by. The petitioner has also annexed photographs showing the quarrying activities that took place in the subject mentioned places. The petitioner has also submitted a representation, dated 09.08.2019, in respect of the illegalities. Since no action was forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6.The writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.23452 and 24495 of 2019 have been filed stating that the 1st respondent / the District Collector, Sivagangai has granted permission to the 2nd respondent, to quarry gravel from Sangusamithra Kanmoi, situated in Survey No.69 at Kalanivasal Group, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, which is in violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.20903 of 2016, dated 28.08.2019, staying grant of lease for quarrying savudu. Moreover, the 2nd respondent has quarried and taken more quantity of gravel than the permitted quantity and therefore, to cancel the permission granted to the 2nd respondent, this writ petitioner has approached this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
7.The case of the petitioners in all these cases is that under the guise of savudu quarries, quarried sand has been exploited by the respective lessees for commercial purposes in a manner not known to law.
8.The learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) denied the same and submitted that 'savudu' is a local term used in the State of Tamil Nadu to define loam soil, which will fall within the category of earth. She further clarified that Savudu is a mineral comprising of ordinary sand, ordinary clay, silt and organic humus, an intermediate soil between sand and clay, fine grained, occurs as top soil, sub surface soil and contains moisture and organic nutrients.
9.The learned AAG would submit that sedimentary aggregates like silt and ordinary clay are dominant fine components of savudu and it is a clastic sediment and a mixture of ordinary clay, silt with ordinary sand with negligible amount of gravel. The percentage of silica is not sufficient to classify it as sand and more specifically under Rule 7 of TNMMCR, 1959 earth is commonly referred to as "savudu". The activities for which these two minerals, ie., sand and savudu used are also different, that Savudu is most suitable for crops, making bricks, filling purposes in a construction activity. It has the ability to http://www.judis.nic.in 10/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch retain moisture and nutrients and this soil is also referred to as an agricultural soil. Thus, savudu is used for agricultural, pottery and domestic purposes apart from using for commercial purposes in linear projects. Savudu can never be equated to sand, which is used for construction of buildings and it cannot be used as normal sand. The learned Additional Advocate General further submits that savudu is a form of earth in character and this will fall within the jurisdiction of the State to pass appropriate Rules for regulating the grant of permission for removal of such minerals from the beds of tanks as stipulated under Rule 12 of TNMMCR,1959 and it is well within the jurisdiction of the State to follow the prescribed Rules for grant of permission for removal of such minerals.
10.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the available materials placed on record.
11.The issue involved in these writ petitions that the mineral sand has been exploited in the name of savudu quarry and with the permits issued for savudu quarry, the sand, which is available under the ordinary earth is exploited. The quarrying of river sand in the State of Tamil Nadu is prohibited, except by the Government, as per Rule 38(A) of TNMMCR, 1959. There is a chequered history for the introduction of this Rule 38(A) in the TNMMCR, 1959.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
12.This Court taking note of the rampant illegal mining of river sand, directed the Government to constitute a High Level Committee and based on the recommendations of this High Level Committee, Rule 38(A) was introduced in the Act by way of an amendment in the year 2003. Since then, the Public Works Department alone is conducting sand quarries and the individuals are not permitted to carryout any sand quarry activities. The sand is one of the essential ingredients for the construction activities and at the same time, it is also an essential element for the storage augmentation of water in the river beds. Government of India and the State of Tamil Nadu considering the importance, issued various guidelines and regulatory measures for quarrying of sand. Excessive sand extraction in the river beds or near river beds, will definitely have a direct impact on the ecological equilibrium and it may also cause adverse impact instream biota and riparian habitats. Therefore, to reduce the adverse impact, arising out of the sand mining, it is imperative to have a study of replenishment for river bed sand.
13.In some of the cases, the learned Counsel for the petitioners demonstrated through photographs that what is quarried in the guise of Savudu is only sand. But the Department has denied the same that Savudu is entirely a different mineral and it cannot be equated with sand. It is a mixture of ordinary http://www.judis.nic.in 12/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch clay, silt with ordinary sand, suitable for crops, making bricks and for filling purposes in construction.
14.The term savudu is not defined in any English Dictionary, but in a Dictionary of Contemporary Tamil, the word savudu is defined as soil, used for making bricks. [br';fy; bra;a gad;gLk; tz;ly;kz;]
15.A separate procedure has been contemplated under Rule 19(2) of the TNMMCR, 1959 for quarrying brick earth and the same is extracted hereunder:
“19(2).Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the procedure for quarrying brick earth shall be as follows:-
(a) Every brick manufacturing unit shall for quarrying brick earth, apply to the District Collector concerned for quarrying permit in Form-I in Appendix-IV-A along with a copy of certificate of registration issued by the District Collector concerned, the consent letter from the pattadar from whose land it is proposed to quarry the earth for the manufacture of bricks, a non-refundable application fee of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only ) and the brick mineral annual fee at the rate specified below remitted in the District Treasury by way of chalan:-
i) For kiln upto 16 chambers: Rs.28,000/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand only) per kiln per annum.
ii) For kiln with 17 and more chambers but not http://www.judis.nic.in 13/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch exceeding 26 chambers: Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) per Kiln per annum.
iii) For kiln with 27 and more chambers: Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per kiln per annum.
iv) For country kiln upto 15 firing vents: Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per kiln per annum.
v) For Country kiln with more than 15 firing vents: Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per kiln per annum.
(b) On receipt of an application for grant of a quarrying permit under clause (a), the District Collector if he sees no valid objection, may grant quarrying permission to the applicant. If there is any valid objection, the District Collector shall give the applicant an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the application.
(c) The permit to be granted under clause (a) shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
i) the permit holder shall intimate to the District Collector about the details of patta lands from which the earth for manufacture of brick is proposed to be quarried fifteen days before commencement of quarry of earth.
Whenever there is a change of location (survey field) of quarrying it shall be intimated in the manner indicated above.
ii) quarrying shall be done only for an optimum depth to be specified by the District Collector so that the land shall be restored to a state fit for cultivation.
iii) quarrying shall be carried out without affecting http://www.judis.nic.in the interest of the adjoining land owners. 14/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
iv) a safety distance of 10 Mts. from the village road, cart track and stream courses shall be left and maintained, and also a safety distance of 50 Mts. from the highways and railway lines should be left and maintained.
v) an agreement in non-judicial stamp paper, in Form till in Appendix IV-A shall be executed within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the permit from the District Collector or within such further period as may be allowed by the District Collector.
vi) the permit shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of execution of the agreement.
vii) quarried earth shall be transported to the kiln of the permit holder only with a way permit issued by the permit holder himself in Form II in appendix-IV A.
viii) The permit holder shall keep correct accounts showing the quantity of brick earth removed and transport.
ix) In case of breach by the permit holder of any of the conditions specified above, the penal provision in the said Rules shall apply.”
16.Admittedly, this Savudu is quarried for the purpose of brick works, pottery and for other filling purposes. If it is so, when there is a specific provision contemplated under the Rules, we are unable to understand how this savudu quarries are permitted by granting permits / licences for quarrying under various other Rules.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
17.On the query raised by this Court, the respondents have also furnished the details of this savudu quarries permitted under Rule 17 of TNMMCR, 1959. In the procedure contemplated under Rule 19(2) of TNMMCR, grant of quarry for brick earth shall be made only by a lease agreement in a non-judicial stamp papers in FORM III in Appendix -A, through the concerned District Collector. But these quarries are permitted without an agreement as a permit or licence.
18.The matters relating to the minor minerals have been left out by the Parliament to the State Governments, while reserving the matters relating to the minerals other than the minor minerals with the Central Government. The Mines and Minerals Development, vests with the Parliament, as per entry 54 of List I and the Central Act mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957, is governing the mine and mineral development.
19.The power to make Rules in respect of minor minerals are conferred with the State Government by Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals [Development and Regulation] Act, 1957 [Hereinafter shall be referred to as MMDR Act, 1957]. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules was framed in the year 1959.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
20.The minor mineral is defined in clause (e) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the minor mineral means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand and other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other material, which the Central Government may, by Notification in the Gazette of India, declare to be a minor mineral. The term 'ordinary sand' used in clause (e) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act, 1957 has been further clarified in Rule 70 of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960 that when the sand is used for any of the following purposes, then it shall not be treated as a minor mineral.
“... .. ... (iv) Purposes of stowing in coal mines,
(v) For manufacture of silvicrete cement,
(vi) Manufacture of sodium silicate and for
(vii) Manufacture of pottery and glass.”
21.In addition to the above, the Central Government has also declared the following minerals as minor minerals:
Sl.No Minor Minerals
i. Boulder
ii. Shingle
iii. Chalcedony pebbles used for ball mill purposes only
iv. Lime shell, kankar and limestone used in kilns for manufacture
of lime used as building material
v. Murrum
vi. Brick-earth
http://www.judis.nic.in
17/48
WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
vii. Fuller's earth
viii. Bentonite
ix. Road metal
x. Reh-matti
xi. Slate and shale when used for building material
xii. Marble
xiii. Stone used for making household utensils
xiv. Quartzite and sandstone when used for purposes of building or
for making road metal and household utensils
xv. Saltpetre, and
xvi. Ordinary earth (Used for filling or leveling purposes in
construction or embankments, roads, railways building).
22. By the Notification, dated 10.02.2015 issued under Section 3(e) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the Ministry of Mines, declares the following minerals to be minor minerals in addition to the minerals already declared by notification:
“(i) Agate; (ii) Ball Clay;(iii) Barytes; (iv) Calcareous Sand; (v) Calcite; (vi) Chalk; (vii) China Clay; (viii) Clay (Others); (ix) Corundum; (x) Diaspore; (xi) Dolomite; (xii) Dunite or pyroxenite; (xiii) Felsite; (xiv) Felspar; (xv) Fireclay; (xvi) Fuschite Quartzite; (xvii) Gypsum; (xviii) Jasper; (xix) Kaolin; (xx) Laterite; (xxi) Limekankar; (xxii) Mica; (xxiii) Ochre; (xxiv) Pyrophyllite; (xxv) Quartz; (xxvi) Quartzite; (xxvii) Sand (Others);
(xxviii) Shale; (xxix) Silica Sand; (xxx) Slate; and (xxxi) Steatite or Talc or Soapstone”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
23.The mineral namely savudu as provided under Rule 12(2) is not defined under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Therefore, without ascertaining the composition of the minerals, as minor mineral, in the form of scientific and technical studies the State Government might have erred in permitting these quarries.
24.It is not on the whims and fancies of the officers, to grant quarry permits in the name of colloquial terms such as "savudu", for grant of lease, when the State Government is having a limited power to grant lease or licence only with regard to the minor minerals and with the powers conferred under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1959. Therefore, this Court by interim order, dated 28.08.2019 restrained the District Collectors of all the Southern Districts, viz., 13 Districts coming under the jurisdiction of this Court, from granting any fresh lease / licence for Savudu sand in respect of patta lands; and they were also directed to take necessary steps to cancel the lease / licence already granted to the pattadars in accordance with law. 24.It is not on the whims and fancies of the officers, to grant quarry permits in the name of colloquial terms such as "savudu", for grant of lease, when the State Government is having a limited power to grant lease or licence only with regard to the minor minerals and with the powers conferred under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1959. http://www.judis.nic.in 19/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch Therefore, this Court by interim order, dated 28.08.2019 restrained the District Collectors of all the Southern Districts, viz., 13 Districts coming under the jurisdiction of this Court, from granting any fresh lease / licence for Savudu sand in respect of patta lands; and they were also directed to take necessary steps to cancel the lease / licence already granted to the pattadars in accordance with law. As against this interim order, the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(C) Diary No.45393 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 16.10.2020 has remitted the matter back to dispose the writ petitions within the time frame stipulated.
25. Subsequent to the above interim order, dated 28.08.2019, several writ petitions came to be filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court alleging that under the guise of Ubari sand, river sand has been illegally quarried and therefore, this Court directed the Department to file the data pertaining to Savudu quarry and Ubari quarry and their date of issuance of quarry lease. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents has also filed the report that 19 savudu sand quarries and 189 "ubari" sand quarries were granted under Rule 17 of the TNMMCR, 1959. The Special Leave Petition filed, disposed with a direction to expedite and dispose of Writ Petition within a time frame. http://www.judis.nic.in 20/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
26. Report filed by the Government, dated 09.11.2020, would indicate among other things that only in few Districts, quarries, in the name of 'savudu' and in few other Districts in the name of Ubari sand are permitted. It is pertinent to note that the permit of 'savudu' was introduced only from the year 2018 and permitting to quarry 'Ubari' sand has been introduced only after passing of the interim orders by this Court, dated 28.08.2019, prohibiting the quarrying of savudu sand in the 13 southern Districts.
27. Section 14 of the the MMDR Act, makes it clear that the provisions from Section 5 to 13 are not applicable to quarrying of minor minerals and the said relevant provisions, relate to other major minerals, like coal, lignite or atomic minerals, other minor minerals. As per Section 13 of the MMDR Act, the Central Government has also framed Minerals (Evidence of Minerals Contents Act) Rules, 2015. The term 'evidence of mineral contents' means, the existence of mineral contents. Therefore, before granting any quarry lease, it is the duty of the Department to ensure the contents/components of the minerals. In respect of licenses issued for quarrying, the permits/ licences were granted without ascertaining the contents/components of the minerals. There are no lab reports and it appears that no mechaism is available with the Geology and Mining Department, to ascertain the composition of minerals before granting any quarry lease.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
28. The powers conferred upon the State Government are restricted for the grant of lease for minor minerals alone in the light of above said Rules the Department must ensure, the nautre of the mineral proposed to be quarryied, by collecting report from the competent lab on the composition of the mineral and till such an exercise is done. The presence of the river sand and other heavy minerals in "Savudu and Ubari sand/soil" cannot be ruled out.
29.The presence of sand is not identified from the river beds alone, it is also available in the adjacent agricultural fields / patta lands. During the floods the rivers breach their boundaries and banks and also due to the velocity of wind the possibility of rich deposit of river sand in the adjacent lands is already confirmed. The photographs produced before this Court expose the presence of sand in the quarries permitted as Savudu quarries.
30.The formation of mineral is transformed from boulder to sand. The boulders in the flow of water transforms as gobble, pebble and gravel, sand, silt and finally clay.
31.If the size of the mineral is between 64 mm to 256 mm, it is called as gobble; from 4 mm to 64 mm, it is called as pebble; from 2 mm to 4 mm, it is http://www.judis.nic.in 22/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch called as gravel; from 0.0625mm to 2 mm, it is called as sand; from 0.00392 to 0.0313 it is called as silt and if it is below 0.0039 mm it is called as clay. [Source book, Sedimentary Rock by E.J.Pettijohn]
32.In a literature of sedimentary rock by renowned Geologist, Scientists E.J.Pettijohn, the term sand is used to denote an aggregate of minerals or rock granular greater than 1/16 MM and less than 2mm in diameter. The other literature also define sand depending upon the grain size in the term of grain diameter and mostly all the literature restrict the same as it is composition of mineral with a grain size 0.0625 MM to 2.00MM.
33. The word sand has been defined in Oxford Dictionary as follows:
“A loose granular substance, typically pale yellowish brown, resulting from the erosion of siliceous and other rocks and forming a major constituent of beaches, river beds, the seabed, and deserts.” All other definitions are also having the definition of sand, depending upon the grain size in the term of its diameter.
34.The stand of the Department is that the term savudu is an ordinary earth consists of 40% sand, 40% silt and 20% of clay. As per the literature above mentioned, silt and clay are further formation of sand and therefore, the http://www.judis.nic.in 23/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch possibility of more than 50% of sand in savudu, cannot ruled out. The quarrying of sand vests only with the Government by virtue of Rule 38(A) of TNMMCR, 1959 from the year 2003. Even then, these quarries with sand are permitted to be carried by the private individuals. Subsequent to Rule 38A of the TNMMCR, 1959, all the sand quarries in Tamil Nadu are operated by the Public Works Department (PWD). The Public Works Department sells one unit of sand @ Rs.2,000/-, but the same is sold around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- in the open market. There is a huge gap between the demand and supply of sand and that is the reason for the escalation of price and due to the demand, there are rampant illegal mining activities taking place in this State. The details furnished by the Department on the cases registered on illegal sand mining reveals the volume of illegal sand quarrying activities in this State.
35.The natural resources such as minerals are gift of mother nature, not only to the human beings, but also to all other living beings in the earth. It must be exploited judiciously, bearing in mind the future generations also. The minerals are also required for sustainable development. Therefore, quarrying must be done in a systematic and scientific manner, bearing in mind the conservation, environment and ecology. The mining plan and environmental clearance are pre-requisites for any mining activities. The mining plan is a important document, by which, the mining can be made in a scientific manner. http://www.judis.nic.in 24/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch When the environmental clearance is sought, the regulatory authorities after considering the potential environmental impact of proposed mining quarries is granted with a set of specific and standard conditions to carry out mining operations. The mining plan and environmental clearance are mandated for any quarry operation, after the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana andothers reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 629.
36.The learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the written submissions filed on behalf of the Government, submitted that as per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in S.O.1224(E), dated 28.03.2020, certain exemptions were granted for the requirement of environmental clearance in Appendix IX of the said notification and therefore, there is no impediment for grant of permission for removal of clay, silt, savadu and gravel from the bunds of tanks, channels and reservoirs in the State for bona fide domestic purpose for making pots and for agricultural purposes, as stipulated in Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12 of TNMMCR, 1959, amended vide G.O.Ms.No.50, Industries Department, dated 27.04.2017, without obtaining environment clearance.
37.This amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.50, Industries Department, dated http://www.judis.nic.in 25/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch 27.04.2017, is much prior to the notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, dated 28.03.2020. The said amendment was made based on the exemptions granted vide Notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, dated 15.01.2016 and the said notification dated 15.01.2016 was challenged before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal at the Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.186 of 2016 [Satendra Pander Vs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and another]. The Tribunal, by order dated 13.09.2018, has held as follows:
“12.The only contention that require for us to consider in this case is as to whether the Notification dated 15th January, 2016 would satisfy the spirit of the directions issued in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). As already noted, EIA Notification dated 14th September, 2006 under the Schedule provided thereto require all mining lease area of equal to and up to 50 ha to seek Environment Clearance requiring to submit EIA for appraisal from the SEIAA.
13.The impugned Notification dated 15th January, 2016, however, would clearly indicate that Category B has been split into category B1 and B2 and again, category B2 has been further split into areas of 0-5 ha and 5-25 ha. While 0-5 ha has been exempted from the requirement of EIA/Public Consultation, such exemption has also been provided even for mining areas of 5 ha to 25 ha with the DEAC and the DEIAA as the prescribed authority for evaluation and grant of Environmental Clearance. Category B-1 being mining areas of 25 ha to 50 ha, the authorities http://www.judis.nic.in 26/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch prescribed are the SEAC and SEIAA. For falling in excess of 50 ha being Category-A, it is the EAC and the MoEF&CC.
14.The procedure for grant of the Environment Clearance by the DEIAA for areas between 0 to 5 ha falling under Category ‘B-2’ is found prescribed in paragraphs 6, 7(iii) (a) and 7 (iii) (b) of the impugned Notification read with appendices VIII, X and XI.
The Schematic Presentation of Requirement of Environment Clearance of Minor Minerals including cluster situation provided in a table to Appendix XI would substantiate indubitably that even for areas between 5 to 25 ha, no EIA and Public Hearing is required and in cluster situation also, the requirement of EIA and Public Hearing have been exempted.
15. Introduction of such procedure, in our view, is clearly not consistent with the directions contained in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) and the spirit behind such direction. By the provision, mining area upto from 5 ha to 25 ha has been completely exempted from the EIA and Public Consultation. For areas of 5 ha and below, apart from the exemption, it has been made only subject to a separate procedure of preparing a District Survey Report (DSR). These provisions quite apparently are more mine centric rather than striving a balance between mining and environment especially with regard to Form-1M which needs to be made more elaborate incorporating environment related aspects.
16. The Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 prepared by the MoEF&CC has also deprecated the procedure as will appear from below which is contained in the chapter on “The Issues and Management of Mining in Cluster”:-
http://www.judis.nic.in “It is seen that the categorization of mines into 'B1' 27/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch and 'B2' category in which Category 'B2' leases are being exempted from the requirement of Environment Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan, and Public Consultation for grant of EC, in many cases now the mining leases are being given for 25 hectares or less. This defeats the purpose and intent of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment which orders environment clearance for all mining leases irrespective of size. The environment clearance without Environment Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan, and Public Consultation does not serve the purpose of environment clearance which is to ensure environmentally sustainable and socially responsible mining. So if a cluster or individual lease size exceeds 5 hectare, the EIA/ EMP should be completed in the process of grant of prior environment clearance.”
17. Thus, even according to the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Policy issued by the MoEF&CC by dispensing with Public Hearing, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) will stand defeated.
18. We also find that parameters for consideration while preparing District Mining Plan (DMP) and District Survey Report (DSR) are only for the purpose of ascertaining whether an area is fit for mining which are quite different from the parameters laid down for EIA. The consideration of the view point of the public by keeping DSR in public domain is not a substitute of Public Hearing for consideration of the view point of the public for EIA.” http://www.judis.nic.in 28/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
38.The Hon'ble National Green Tribunal has also issued directions to take appropriate steps to revise the procedures laid down in the impugned notification dated 15.01.2016, so that the notification shall be in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar's case. Though no steps have been taken to revise the notification by the Government of India, as directed in Deepak Kumar's case, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, by way of subsequent order dated 11.12.2018, in Vikrant Tongad's case, has passed the following order:
“2.This Tribunal noted that the Notification dated 15.01.2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was not consistent with the mandate in Deepak Kumar (supra).
3. The District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) comprised officers having no expertise or scientific knowledge to assess environment implications. Permitting DEAC to make assessment was also not consistent with the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016. Accordingly, MoEF&CC was directed to take steps to revise the procedure laid down in the Notification dated 15.01.2016.
4. According to the applicant, the MoEF&CC failed to issue appropriate Notification. Moreover, the State of Uttar Pradesh vide the letter dated 25.10.2018 and State of Kerala vide the letter dated 29.10.2018 directed Environmental Clearance to be given in accordance with the Notification dated 15.01.2016 in violation of the judgment of this tribunal dated 13.09.2018 which in turn is to http://www.judis.nic.in 29/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch implement the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra).
5. Accordingly, we direct the MoEF&CC to comply with the order dated 13.09.2018 forthwith and furnish a report of compliance on or before 31.12.2018 failing which coercive measures may have to be taken. We also make it clear that till a fresh Notification is issued by the MoEF&CC, Notification dated 15.01.2016 will not be acted upon.
6. Since our attention has been drawn to letter dated 29.10.2018 issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kerala addressed to the District Environment Impact Assessment Authorities of various districts in Kerala that Notification dated 15.01.2016 having not being stayed, the same be followed. This interpretation is clearly contrary to the order of this Tribunal disapproving the Notification dated 15.01.2016 and requiring the same to be revised. The direction that 15.01.2016 should still be acted upon is clearly illegal and in violation of judgment of this Tribunal. The same will stand suspended till a fresh Notification is issued by the MoEF&CC as directed hereinabove.
7. This direction will apply to all the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities/State Governments.”
39.As per the above orders, the notification dated 15.01.2016 has been suspended with a direction to issue fresh notification. http://www.judis.nic.in 30/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
40.Accordingly, this subsequent notification dated 28.03.2020 has been notified, exempting the following categories from getting prior environmental clearance, in Appendix IX of the notification:
“1. Extraction of ordinary clay or sand by manual mining, by the Kumhars (Potter) to prepare earthen pots, lamp, toys, etc. as per their customs.
2. Extraction of ordinary clay or sand by manual mining, by earthen tile makers who prepare earthen tiles.
3. Removal of sand deposits on agricultural field after flood by farmers.
4. Customary extraction of sand and ordinary earth from sources situated in Gram Panchayat for personal use or community work in village.
5. Community works, like, de-silting of village ponds or tanks, construction of village roads, ponds or bunds undertaken in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment and Guarantee Schemes, other Government sponsored schemes and community efforts.
6. Extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc.
7. Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management.
8. Traditional occupational work of sand by Vanjara and Oads in Gujarat vide notification number GU/90(16)/MCR-2189(68)/5-CHH, dated the 14th February, 1990 http://www.judis.nic.in 31/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch of the Government of Gujarat.
9. Manual extraction of lime shells (dead shell), shrines, etc., within inter tidal zone by the traditional community.
10. Digging of wells for irrigation or drinking water purpose.
11. Digging of foundation for buildings, not requiring prior environmental clearance, as the case may be.
12. Excavation of ordinary earth or clay for plugging of any breach caused in canal, nallah, drain, water body, etc., to deal with any disaster or flood like situation upon orders of the District Collector or District Magistrate or any other Competent Authority.
13. Activities declared by the State Government under legislations or rules as non-mining activity.”
41.Even this notification dated 28.03.2020 was also put under challenge before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal at its Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A.No.190 of 2020 and the Tribunal, by order dated 28.10.2020, has directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to revisit the Clauses 6 & 7 of the Appendix IX of the notification, in view of the observations made thereunder.
42.In fact, apart from Clauses 6 & 7 of the Appendix IX of the notification dated 28.03.2020, the other Clauses also will not be applicable in http://www.judis.nic.in 32/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch the present cases on hand, for the reason that in all these cases, the permission to quarry savadu was for commercial purpose and not for any bona fide public purpose. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that prior environment clearance is not required for savadu quarrying is not sustainable.
43.This Court has also noted that all these quarries are granted either as a permit or a license, without a lease agreement. Any permission for quarry operation shall be in the form of a lease agreement by the competent authority. However, most of these quarries are granted as temporary permits or licenses without any agreement from the competent authority.
44.As per Sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the MMDR Act, no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operation in any area except under in accordance with the terms and conditions of reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or as the case may be of a mining lease, granted under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the MMDR Act, reads as under:
“2.No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” http://www.judis.nic.in 33/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
45.Any violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence, as per Section 21 of the Act. Any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, if granted in contravention of the MMDR Act, is deemed to be void as per Section 19 of the Act.
46.The prospecting licence and reconnaissance operations are defined under Section 3(h) and 3ha of the MMDR Act as follows:
“3h.“prospecting operations” means any operations undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposits;
3ha.“reconnaissance operations” means any operations undertaken for preliminary prospecting of a mineral through regional, aerial, geophysical or geochemical surveys and geological mapping, but does not include pitting, trenching, drilling (except drilling of boreholes on a grid specified from time to time by the Central Government) or sub-surface excavation;”
47.As per the above definition, any permit or licence can be granted only for investigation of mineral and not for mining operation. The mining operation is permissible only by way of a lease in the form of an agreement as per sub Section 1 and 2 of Section 4 of the MMDR Act and any permit and licence granted in contravention of the same is deemed to be void as per http://www.judis.nic.in 34/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch Section 19 of the MMDR Act.
48.The State is the owner of the mineral and therefore, even for quarrying of mineral from a Ryotwari land, a lease is required from the competent authority. Any mining lease shall be made by a statutory contract, as per Article 299 (1) of the Constitution of India.
49.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jui v. Dar Dass Dey & Co. and Others, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 106, has held that the right to quarry of a mining operation in land to extract a specified mineral, is to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a right to enjoy immovable property within the meaning of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. For better appreciation, the relevant portions are extracted as under:
“34. Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, defines a “lease” of immovable property as— “a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, as share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.”
35. In the second para of the section, it is expressly stated that the price so paid in consideration of the transfer is called http://www.judis.nic.in 35/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch “the premium, and the money, share, service, or other thing to be so rendered, is called the rent”.
36. The definition of “immovable property” given in Section 3, para 1 of that Act is in the negative, and is not exhaustive.
Therefore, the definition given in Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) will apply to the expression used in this Act, except as modified by the definition in the first clause of Section 3. According to the definition given in Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, “ ‘immovable property’ shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth”. In short, the expression “immovable property” comprehends all that would be real property according to English Law and possibly more. (See 1 IA 34 [Maharana Fattehsangji v. Dessai Kallianraiji] ) Thus, every interest in immovable property or a benefit arising out of land, will be “immovable property” for the purpose of Section 105, Transfer of Property Act.
37. A right to carry on mining operations in land to extract a specified mineral and to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a “right to enjoy immovable property” within the meaning of Section 105; more so, when — as in the instant case — it is coupled with a right to be in its exclusive khas possession for a specified period. The “right to enjoy immovable property” spoken of in Section 105, means the right to enjoy the property in the manner in which that property can be enjoyed. If the subject- matter of the lease is mineral land or a sand-mine, as in the case before us, it can only be enjoyed and occupied by the lessee by http://www.judis.nic.in 36/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch working it, as indicated in Section 108, Transfer of Property Act, which regulates the rights and liabilities of lessors and lessees of immovable property.”
50.The law relating to the Government contracts is provided under Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Article 299 (1) reads as follows:
“All the contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the union or of a state shall be expressed to be made by the President, or by the Governor of the State as the case may be, and such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of President or the Governor by such person and in such manner as he may direct or authorise.”
51.Article 299(1) of the Constitution derives its Source from Section 173(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Article 299(1) lays down three requisite conditions for the formation of Government Contracts, which are as follows:
“1.All the Contracts shall be expressed to be made by the President or by the Governor as the case may be.
2.All such Contracts and assurances of the property made in the exercise of the executive power shall be executed on the behalf of the President or the Governor as the case may be.
3.All such Contracts must be executed by such person and http://www.judis.nic.in 37/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch in such a manner as may be authorised or directed by the President or Governor.”
52.It is clear that the Parliament intended in enacting the provision contained in Section 175(3) that the State should not be saddled with liability for unauthorised contracts and with that object, provided that the contracts must show on their face that they are made on behalf of the State, ie., by the Head of the State and executed on his behalf and in the manner prescribed by the person authorised.
53.A contract executed by a person, who is not authorised, is void. Similarly, any permission granted not in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, is also void, as per Section 19 of the Act.
54.This Court, at this juncture, feels it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Raghunath Singh, reported in AIR 1974 Raj 4, wherein, the Division Bench of the Court has observed as follows:
“13. In determining the liability of the Union and the State http://www.judis.nic.in 38/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch in respect of contracts, regard must be had to Article 299(1) of the Constitution, which prescribes the formal requirements for the making of contracts by the Union and the State for their power to enter into contracts and to carry on trade or business is expressly affirmed by Article 298, which provides that the executive power of the Union and the State extends to the carrying on of any trade or business, acquiring, holding or disposing of any property and the making of contracts. Therefore, if the requirements of Article 299 are complied with, there remains no doubt that under Article 300 a valid contract can be enforced against the Union and the State and in case there is a breach damages in respect of the breach can be claimed. It is a settled law that the provisions of Article 299 are mandatory. It follows, therefore, that any agreement which did not comply with its terms is void. Section 2(e) and (h) of the Contract Act provides that an agreement not enforceable by law is void and an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. If the terms of Article 299 are not complied with in the present case, the contract will be void as being not enforceable in law. The question was considered in Seth Bhikrai Jaipuria v.
Union of India AIR 1962 SC 113 with reference to Section 175(3) and (4) of the Government of India Act. 1935, which contained provisions corresponding to those of Article 299(1) and (2). Shah J., referred to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes for the tests to determine whether a statutory provision was mandatory or directory and observed:--
"It is clear that the Parliament intended in enacting the provision contained in Section 175(3) that the State http://www.judis.nic.in should not be saddled with liability for unauthorised 39/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch contracts and with that object provided that the contracts must show on their face that they are made on behalf of the State, i. e. by the Head of the State and executed on his behalf and in the manner prescribed by the person authorised. The provision, it appears, is enacted in the public interest, and invests public servants with authority to bind the State by contractual obligations incurred, for the purposes of the State."
14. In State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal and Sons AIR 1962 SC 779 the Supreme Court followed Bhikrai's case and held that Section 175 (3) was mandatory and that failure to comply with it made the agreement invalid, which must mean in the context that it was "void". The Supreme Court took the same view in the Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram AIR 1963 SC 1685.
15. In a Bench decision of this Court in Tiwari Jhumarlal Swarooplal v. State of Raiasthan 1964 Raj LW 380 it was held with regard to a minor mineral lease that the lease agreement, if not executed in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution, will not be enforceable in law.
16. The same view was taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Bharat Bhoosan v. State of Raiasthan S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 2268/70 decided on 17-1-1973 (Raj). In that case a lease agreement was signed by the Joint Director on behalf of the Governor. It was revealed that Joint Director was not authorised to execute and sign on behalf of the Governor. The agreement was State Of Rajasthan vs Raghunath Singh on 9 March, 1973 declared to be unenforceable in law and the demand notice for the http://www.judis.nic.in recovery of the money due under the said agreement was quashed. 40/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
17. Likewise Lodha J. in the State of Raiasthan v. Jairam Das AIR 1972 Raj 38 held that the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution makes the contract void and it cannot be enforced. This was also a case of lease under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1955.
18. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we have no manner of doubt that the mining lease was though granted to the plaintiff by the Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, it was in exercise of the executive function of the State and Article 299 of the Constitution applied to the mining lease in Question.”
55.As stated supra, all these savudu quarries are permitted either in the form of permit or licence, without any lease agreement of the competent Authority and therefore, these quarries are, per se, illegal.
56.Section 18 of the MMDR Act, mandates the Central Government to take all steps for the conservation and systematic development of minerals in India for the protection of environment, by preventing or controlling pollution, which may be caused by the prospecting or mining operations.
57.As per the said provisions and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar's (2012) 4 SCC page 629 case, the Central Government has framed the Mineral Conservation Rules, 2017, enabling the http://www.judis.nic.in 41/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch respective State Governments either to adopt the Rules or to make Rules for the minor minerals also.However, the State Government neither adopted the Rules nor framed any separate Rules.
58.It appears that savudu quarries are permitted without any lease agreement, without any mining plan and without any environmental clearance. The Department did not take any steps to identify by subjecting the mineral for examination with any lab to ascertain the contents/components of the mineral. Therefore, these savudu quarries are permitted without following the relevant Acts and Rules and therefore, all these permits were granted for Savudu without any lease agreement, without ascertaining the composition of the mineral, without mining plan and without environmental clearance, are against relevant provisions of law.
59.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court deems it to issue the following directions:
(i) There shall not be any grant of quarry lease without ascertaining the composition/component of the minerals and without obtaining a report from a authorised lab. The Department of Geology and Mining shall establish a lab on its own or shall authorise any lab in this regard.
http://www.judis.nic.in 42/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
(ii) There shall not be any quarry operation in the name of colloquial terms / local terms and any lease shall be in accordance with minerals notified under Section 3 of the MMDR Act.
(iii) A High Level committee has to be constituted, consisting of Geologists and Experts in the said field and eminent Officers from WRO, PWD, to conduct a detailed study / survey on the possibility or the availability of the river sand on the adjacent patta lands to the rivers and those places, where sand is available, have to be notified and declared as protected zones and there cannot be any quarry operation other than by the Government, in those notified areas.
(iv) The Department of Geology and Mining, shall furnish the details of all the savudu quarries granted so far, in the State of Tamil Nadu, to this Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The details of all the savadu quarries shall also be furnished to the High Level Committee and the High Level http://www.judis.nic.in 43/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch Committee shall inspect those quarries to ascertain the availability of sand in those quarries. In the event of the High Level Committee ascertaining the availability of sand in these quarries, the same shall be reported to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, marking a copy to this Court and the Commissioner shall take necessary action as against the officials, who have granted quarry permits without ascertaining the composition of minerals.
(vi) Any quarry operations shall be permitted only by way of lease agreement, as per Article 299 (I) of the Constitution of India.
(vii) The Government shall either adopt the Mineral Conservation Rules, 2017, framed by the Central Government or frame a separate Rule, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepa Kumar's case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(viii)Whenever, SEIAA clearance is required, it shall be done only after physical inspection by deputing an officer attached to SEIAA and depending upon the report, further http://www.judis.nic.in 44/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch proceedings may take place in accordance with law and there must be a mechanism to ensure the conditions of SEIAA are strictly complied with.
60.The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
[M.S.N., J.] [B.P., J.]
12.02.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
dsk
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram.
3.The District Collector, Sivagangai.
4.The District Collector, Madurai District.
5.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thoothukudi District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 45/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
6.The Assistant Director [Mines and Minerals] Collectorate Campus, Ramanathapuram.
7.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department [PWD], Water Resources Organisation, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 05.
8.The Commissioner, Department of Geology and Mining, Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.
9.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.
10.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram.
11.The Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Collectorate, Thoothukudi District.
12.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department [PWD], Water Resource Organisation, Thamiarabarani River Water Basin Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District – 2.
13.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
14.The Tahsildar, Thirupprankundram Taluk, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 46/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch
15.The Executive Engineer, Periyar Vaigai River Drain Basin, Public Works Department, Madurai.
16.The Block Development Officer, Thirupparankundram Block, Madurai District.
17.The Assistant Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 47/48 WP(MD) No.20903 of 2016, etc., batch M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
AND B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk W.P.(MD)Nos.20903 of 2016, 23452, 24495, 17370 and 18035 of 2019 12.02.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in 48/48