LexPREMIUM GRANITES AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PREMIUM GRANITES AND ANR. A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. FEBRUARY 4, .1994 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND G.N. RAY, J.] B ~ ,..._ Tamil Nadu Mineral Concession Rules, 1959: Rule B(c), 39-Power of State Government to grant or renew quarry lease in special cases for reasons to be recorded in writing in the interest of 'Mineral Development' and in 'Public Interest'-R.ule 39 held valid and not violative of Article 14-Rule does not C confer unguided and uncanalised power-Reading down of Rule will defeat the purpose of Rule-Held expression 'Mineral Development' and 'Jn public interest' are not vague-But are essential requirement for granting exemption under Rule 39. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14: Statute-Discretion-Guidelines D for exercise of-Need not be found in the impugned provision-Can be ga•hered from the setting of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Interpretation of Statutes: Statute-Provision for relaxation or exemp- tion-lnterpretation of-Purpose and effect of relaxation should be taken into E account-R.ule of reading dowrz-,-Applicability of. Administrative Law: Public policy-Judicial review-Scope of. In exercise of the power conferred by sub-sections (1) and (l·A) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act F 1957 the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 39 of the said Rules empowers the State Government to grant quarry leases to private persons in appropriate cases in the interest o~ mineral development and in public interest for reasons to be recorded in writing on the terms and conditions different from those laid down in G Mineral Concession Rules. The validity of Rule 39 was challenged before + the High Court of Madras which declared it unconstitutional and void on the ground that the impugned rule confers unguided and. uncanalised powers on the State Government. In appeal to tbis Court, supporting the decision of the High Court, H 579 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R. A it was contended that (i) Rule 39 is quite valid and has been inserted in the Mineral Concession Rules for a reasonable purpose. It is a part of the policy underlying the Mineral Concession Rules which is consistent with the object of the MMRD Act. As exercise of relaxation for grant of quarry leases under Rule 39 can only be made within the parameters of 'public B c interest' and for the 'mineral development' by recording the reasons in writing, Rule 39 does not suffer from arbitrariness or unguided m: un- bridled power offending Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) Rule 39 does not confer an uncanalised power and does not suffer from the vice of want of guidelines. It contains the guidelines viz. that the grant must be for mineral development and "in public interest". In other words, Rule 39 has been inserted to provide for grant of lease which may not be done strictly under Rule 8 A or 8(C) but which is warranted for mineral development and 'in public interest' for good reasons to be recorded; (iii) the guidelines need not be expressly founil in the impugned provisions but such guidelines can be gathered from the setting of the Acts and the Rules D framed thereunder; (iv) the power conferred under Rule 39 is not an absolute, discretionary power of the State Government unfettered by any valid consideration but exercise of such power within the aforesaid parameter is always open to judicial scrutiny thereby affording ample safeguard against any abuse in exercising the power. If in any individual E F case, power has not been exercised properly and the reasons which have got to be recorded in writing do not stand the scrutiny of reasonableness and. the purposes for which such power of exemption can be exercised, challenge for improper action in such individual cases before a wurt of law can always be made; (v) since reasons are to be recorded in writing while exercising the power under Rule 39, it can always be ascertained from the order that may be passed under the said provisions of Rule 39 as to whether the grant is one for furthering mineral development or not; (vi) . the word 'public interest' is a word of definite concept. The said expression · does D9t suffer from any vagueness or indefiniteness. 'Mineral development' also Is not a vague concept but has a definite meaning which G can be tested objectively particularly when reasons are to be recorded in writing und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.