Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General and standing counsel for the Environment and Forest Department, assisted by Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Environment and Forest Department.

Case of the petitioner:

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner Company is that it is the owner of a stone crushing unit under the name and style of M/s. Anupam Bricks & Concrete Industry. It is projected that the petitioner purchases stones from the stone quarry/mining lease holders and then it is crushed in its unit and supplied to various dealers and consumers including the Govt. Departments and Page No.# 3/24 N.F. Railway. It is not disputed that the petitioner's said stone crushing unit has the requisite consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, Assam.

(v) Provisional Registration Certificate from the concerned District Industries Centre. Moreover, during the operation of the stone crushing unit, the owner of the stone crushing unit is required to submit a quarterly report to the DFO.

8. It was submitted that a stone crusher unit is an Industry, which cannot be regulated by Forest Department. It was further submitted that stone Page No.# 5/24 was not a forest produce and was a minor mineral. In the said connection, the provision of clause (e) of section 3 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ("MMDR Act" for short) was referred to and it has been submitted that Minor Minerals is defined to mean building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette declared to be a minor mineral".

27. It was submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Moolchand Saraugi Jain (supra), followed in the case of Bejiram Ingty (supra) were in a different context and they cannot be considered as an authority on the point as to whether stone crusher unit to manufacture stone aggregate, storage, sale and transportation of stones after being crushed in the stone crushing unit of the petitioner would be within the scope and ambit of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and the Forest Act, 1927. It was submitted that in a subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Durga Krishna Stone Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in reference to notification dated 01.09.2009, issued by the Government of Assam to prescribe rates of royalty leviable on all classes of forest produce, had held that stone ballast is a forest produce. Therefore, it has been submitted that on facts, the cases of Moolchand Saraugi Jain (supra), followed in the case of Bejiram Ingty (supra) may not be Page No.# 11/24 relied on.

51. However, while the State Government has framed the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, the State Government had not framed any Rules for dealing with minor minerals covered by Schedule-Y. Page No.# 24/24

52. Therefore, it is hoped that the Government of Assam would be well advised to frame appropriate rules for the Environment and Forest Department of the Government of Assam to deal with minor minerals which are exclusively under their jurisdiction and/or area of operation. Such a Rule would go a long way in furtherance of one of the government goals of achieving ease of doing business in the State and would provide clarity to the Stone Crushing Units and persons dealing with stone.