Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. Now the question is whether prosecution and other proceedings are possible under the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Let us see the definition of "mineral". The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the MMDR Act can have application only to minerals, and cannot have any application to minor minerals which are separately dealt with under the Rules framed by the Government of Kerala as authorised under Section 15(1) of the MMDR Act. The learned counsel also submitted that under these Rules seizure of articles is not possible, and what is possible at the most is punishment for violation of the provisions of the Rules, and not for violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submitted that the definition of minerals is a wide definition including minor minerals, and that Section 3 of the MMDR Act defines minor minerals with a definite object. The learned Government Pleader submitted that such a separate definition is given under Clause (e) not because minor minerals are not included in the definition of minerals under Clause (a). Clause (a) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act defines minerals to include all minerals except mineral oils. Clause

(e) of Section 3 defines minor minerals, to mean building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that when there is a separate definition of minor minerals under Clause (e), the definition of minerals in Clause

(a) cannot include minor minerals. On an examination of the different definitions and also the application of different provisions including Section 15 which authorises the State Governments to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals, we find that the definition of minerals under Clause (a) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act is a very wide definition covering minor minerals also. The answer to the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is contained in the scheme of the provisions of the Act. One may ask why minor mineral is separately defined under the law, if it is included in the definition of minerals. We find that it is with a specific object the parliament defined minerals generally and minor minerals specifically. The scheme of the provisions of the MMDR Act is that exclusive powers are given to the Centre to deal with minerals other than minor minerals, but under Section 15, State Governments are authorised to make Rules with respect to minor minerals alone. Even as regards minor minerals the scope of the Rules must be for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. The matters on which the State Governments can make rules for regulating the grant of such leases or concessions are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (o) of sub Section IA of Section

15. When the application of law is divided as regards the subject matter categorywise, it is imperative that the subject matter within the powers of the centre and the subject matter within the powers of the States must be separately dealt with. This is the only reason why the MMDR Act defines minerals generally and minor minerals specifically. The definition of minerals is an inclusive definition covering all sorts of minerals except mineral oils defined under Clause (b). Clause

(e) contains a specific definition of minor minerals, only because such a definition is necessary when legislative powers by way of rule making are given to the States under Section 15 in respect of minor minerals. Thus we find that minor minerals, though defined separately under Clause (e) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act are included under the definition of minerals under Clause (a) of Section 3.