Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The case of the respondents, as could be seen from the common counter affidavit filed in this batch, is stated in brief as follows :-

The purchasers of sand from the PWD quarries are issued with permits for the transportation of sand from the quarry site to the construction point. But some of the purchasers of sand claim that they have established stockyard for sand and they are selling sand from the stockyard. They further claim that their vehicles carrying sand from the stockyard should not be checked by any authority. One of the main objectives of the government for making available the sand to the common man at a reasonable rate and to curtail illicit transportation of sand is defeated as the sand stockyard holders, after purchasing the sand from the PWD quarry, escalate the price of sand several times before selling and there is scope for illicit transportation and subsequent sale under the guise of stockyard sales. It is stated that the averment of the petitioner that the sand quarried from the PWD cannot be directly used for construction and other purposes is not factually correct. It is stated that Rule 38-C of the Rules stipulates the procedure for establishing sand stockyard and it is not the intention of the government to prohibit the sale of sand from the stockyard. However, those persons who intend to store sand have to necessarily obtain the licence for such establishment of sand stockyard and the licence is also subject to certain conditions as stipulated in the rules. The person who is a licensee for such stockyard should establish that the quantity stocked has already suffered seigniorage fee and produce documents in support of the same before the authorities. The further transport of sand from the stockyard to any place can be done without any further remittance of seigniorage fee provided that the documents such as the transport permits issued by the PWD for transporting same from the quarrying point to the stockyard are produced in original and the sale slip for re-transporting such sand from the stockyard to the place of the purchaser are authenticated by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk as per the rules. The respondents case is that the objective of Rule 38-C of the Rules will get defeated if the petitioners are allowed to carry on the business of selling sand from stockyards established without obtaining licence on their own accord and preventing authorities from checking the vehicles. It is stated that the receipt of invoice, sale bill, registration with the commercial tax department, etc. are only the procedures with regard to the commercial tax leviable on the sale of commodities, but they will not entitle the petitioners to establish a sand stockyard without observing the procedures laid down under Rule 38-C of the Rules. It is stated that the quarried sand does not require any cumbersome process, as mentioned by the petitioners, for being used in construction work. By paying the seigniorage fee for sand, even though the petitioners have become the owners of the sand, they cannot sell the sand at an escalated price by way of stocking it in their stockyards, making artificial scarcity. It is stated that Rule 38-C contains only reasonable restrictions which can be implemented without any practical difficulties. Those restrictions ought to be viewed in an objective manner and in the interest of common public. The contention of the petitioners that it is practically impossible for a retailer and petty stockist to get such a licence cannot be accepted. With regard to sale of sand, there is no concept of wholesale dealers or retailers. The common public can directly approach the Public Works Department quarry and purchase sand from there directly or through agencies. If anyone wants to trade sand through storing it in stockyards, then he should necessarily obtain licence as stipulated in the rules. It is stated that the impugned rule viz., Rule 38-C does not violate the provisions contained in Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is stated that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 are not absolute, but they are subject to reasonable restrictions. The State Government has enacted Rule 38-C as per the power conferred under Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to protect the environment and ecology as well as taking into consideration the alarming condition of depletion of ground water levels, cost of sand to the common consumer, illegal mining, storage and transports. Moreover, the petitioners have not established or shown any right or permission under which they can engage in such a business. The action on the part of the State Government is valid as per doctrine of public trust and it is a precautionary principle under which the State should always anticipate environmental harm and take measures to avoid and prevent illegal mining, storage and transportation of sand in the State. The State being a welfare state is under a constitutional obligation to regulate such things. The implementation of a procedural law cannot be termed as interference with the business activity of the petitioners. If the procedures enacted by the Government are not implemented, petitioners and their clan would involve in illegal storage of sand and it will lead to unaccounted sand stored in unrecognized places, and consequently the government will face huge loss of revenue, and these persons would make merry by creating an artificial scarcity of sand in the market. The impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.32, Industries Department dated 11.02.2011 is only a procedural law enacted by the State Government under the powers vested with it as per Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. The procedures enunciated by the Government in the said Government Order have to be implemented to avoid illicit actions of the petitioners in order to avoid loss of revenue to Government and to protect the larger interest of the common public, and therefore, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
2. In compliance with the direction of the Honble Court, the Government in the order first read above, constituted a six member High Level Committee. The Committee, after extensive study of the river systems in the State, submitted its report to the Government. The Committee, in its report, expressed the view that illicit and haphazard sand mining has led to deepening of the river beds, widening of the rivers, damage to civil structures, depletion of ground water table, degradation of ground water quality, sea water intrusion in costal areas, damages to the river systems and reduction of bio-diversity. The Committee reported that the existing system of sand quarrying failed to protect the environment and the river system. The Committee observed that even though several rules on sand mining exist, illicit quarrying of sand is out of control as the authority for regulating sand mining is vested with different organizations such as State Geology and Mining Department, Revenue Department and Public Works Department and, hence, implementation and monitoring of rules and regulations regarding sand quarrying are not effective. The Committee, therefore, recommended that this important task of sand mining should be entrusted to a Single Agency.
3. The recommendations of the High Level Committee were examined by the Government. With a view to eliminate indiscriminate and unscientific sand quarrying, to ensure uninterrupted availability of sand to the common people in a regular and orderly manner at affordable price and to augment the revenue of the State Government, the Government in public interest issued amendment to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, in the Government Order second read above by introduction of Rule 38-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, whereby all existing leases for quarrying sand in Government lands and permissions granted in Ryotwari lands ceased to be effective with effect from 02.10.2003. the right to quarry sand in the State now vests with the State through the Public Works Department.
4. The policy of the Government finalized on the directions of the Honble Court and on the recommendations of the High Level Committee to entrust the task of sand quarrying to Single Government Agency was reviewed by the Government in May 2008. During the All Legislature Party Leaders meeting, the Government expressed concern over illicit sand quarrying and transportation as there is a constant demand for river sand in view of increasing development in the city and surrounding areas. During the meeting, the Government after the deliberations on various possible ways to effectively monitor sand mining, took a policy decision to continue the existing system of sand quarrying and sale. The Government also decided to prohibit the transportation of river sand across the State borders with a view to check the uncontrolled illicit quarrying all along the riverbeds and to ensure uninterrupted availability of sand to the common people in a regular and orderly manner at affordable prices. Accordingly, orders have been issued in the Government order third read above prohibiting transport of sand across the State borders.