LexK.T. VARGHESE & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 1S.C.R.1205 A K.T. VARGHESE & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6456 of 2001) B JANUARY 24, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] I- Mines and minerals: c Kera/a Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 - Selling stock of minor minerals-limeshell and exhibiting them for sale - Grant of licence subject to certain conditions - Minerals to be purchased only from authorised quarrying permit holders and that the sale would be only for domestic and agricultural D purposes within State - Correctness of - Held: State - Government does not have the power to exercise control over minor minerals after they have been excavated - Thus, conditions stipulated could not have been imposed and are - struck down - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and E Development) Act, 1957 - Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The appellants, engaged in the business of limeshell, were holding the dealers' licence to sell stock and exhibit for sale minor minerals under the Minor Mineral F Concession Rules, 1967. Their licence was renewed subject to certain conditions and restrictions that the minerals permitted to be stocked were to be purchased only from authorised quarrying permit holders; and that they were permitted to sell the minerals only within the G State of Kerala for domestic and agricultural purposes only. Appellant filed Original petition on the ground that ~ such restrictions were not imposed in case of the Co- operative Societies, and as such there was discrimination. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Petition H 1205 K.T. VARGHESE & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 1206 . & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 1207 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A The appellants are enpaged in the business of limeshell. They have been holding the necessary dealers' licence issued under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Rules') under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, B 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (in short the 'Rules'). The appellants were given the licence under Rule 48-C of the State Rules. As per the licence the appellants got the licence to sell stock and exhibit for sale minor minerals under the Rules. Along with the c licence certain conditions have also been laid down which the appellants are under obligation to comply with. When the appellants were not granted the renewal of licence fof the period 1997-98, they approached the High Court by filing 0. P No.14269/ 1997 which was disposed of by judgment dated 16.2.1998. The 0 appellants filed a Writ Appeal against the said judgment and the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.547/1998 directed the first respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants were granted renewal of their licences for the period 1998-99. E 3. The appellants' complaint is that certain conditions in the form of restrictions have been incorporated while issuing the licences. One of such conditions which the appellants attacks is that the minerals permitted to be stocked were to be purchased only from authorised quarrying permit holders on that F behalf. Another condition is that they are permitted to sell the minerals only within the State of Kerala that too for domestic and agricultural purposes. The appellants' complaint is that as far as Co-operative Societies are concerned, they are not saddled with any such restrictions impcsed in the case of the G appellants. Thus, according to the appellants. there is a clear discrimination between the Co-operative Societies and the ' "" individuals in the matter of restrictions imposed in the :icences granted to them. Apart from that there is no legal sanction for such restrictions. H 4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view K.T. VARGHESE & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 1208 . · that the licence was granted subject to certain conditions and A restrictions. The State Government was empowered to impose such conditions under the Act and the State Rules and the licences were issued in terms of provisions of the Act and the State Rules. Since the conditional licence was issued, the licencees cannot take up the benefit of licences without the B conditions imposed. 5. The Division Bench in writ appeal did not specificall
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.