STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus HINDU STONE ETC.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 05-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 18 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
742 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
11. 
HIND STONE ETC. 
February 5, 1981 
[R. S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) 
Act, 
1951-Section 
15-Rule 8-C of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959-Scope 
of-Rule, if ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government-
Whether l'iolative of Articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution. 
C 
lnJerpretation-"Regulation" whether includes ''prohibition". 
D 
The Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Central 
Act) 'vas enacted in the public interest to enable the Union to take under its 
contro1 the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. Exercising 
its power u'.lder this Act, the Central Government declared by a notification 
that b?ack granite was a minor mineral. 
Exercising power vested in it by section 15 of the Act, the State Government 
made the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 8 of the 
Rules pre.scribes the procedure for lease of quarries to private persons. 
Bv 
rule 8·C, introduced in 1977. leases for quarrying black granite in favour of 
private persons were banned. 
Sub·rule (2) of this rule enacts that the Statt" 
Government themselves may engage in quarrying black granite or grant leases 
for quarrying black granite in favour of any corporation v,,·holly O"Wned by the 
State Government. 
Several applications for the grant of fresh leases as well as for the rene\Val 
of leases for quarrying black granite belonging to the State Government were 
submitted to the State Government. sOme prior to the introduction of rule 8C 
and some after the rule ca·me into force. The State Government considered 
all the applications and rejected all of them in view of nlle SC. 
The respondents filed writ petition questioning the vircs of Rule S·C on 
various grounds. 
The High Court stn1ck do\vn Rule 8·C on the ground fhat 
it exceeded the rule making power given to the State Government and held 
that it was not open to the appellant Government to keep the applic~1tions 
pending for a long time and then to dispose them of on the basis of n rule 
\vhich had come into force later. 
As a result all the aprlications were disposed 
G 
of without reference to rule 8·C. 
H 
The appellant contended that : (T) The approach of the High Court was 
vitiated by its failure to notice the crucial circumstance thnt 
the 
minerals 
belonged to the Government, (TI) The respondents had no vested or indefe<lsible 
right to obtain a lease or :i renewal to Quarry the minerals, (TIT) There \Vere 
good reasons for banning the grant of lease to quarry black granite to private 
parties and (IV) The Government could not be compelled to grant leases \~1hich 
would result in the destn1ction of the mineral resources of th~ or;:nntry. 
On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that (l) 
the ouestion 
of 
ownership of the minerals was irrelevant, (TI) It was not open to the appe11ant 
···~
-
-
( 
I 
TAMIL NADU V. HIND STONE 
743 
to exercise its subordinate legislative function in a manner to benefit itself 
as owner of the minerals, nor was it open to the appellant to create monopoly 
by such means, (Ill) There was violation of articles 301 and 303 of 
the 
Constitution, (IV) Rule 8-C had no application to renewals and (V) That in 
any event it would not have the effect Qf affecting applications made more 
than 60 days before it can1e into force. 
Accepting the appeals, it was 
l-lliLD ; llule 8-C was 111ade in bonafi<le 
exercise 0£ 
the 
rule making 
power of the Appellant Government and not in its misuse to advance its own 
self interest. Making a rule which is perfectly in order is not to be considered 
a n1isuse of the rule making power, if it advances the interest of State, which 
really 111eans the people of the State. 
Rivers, forests, minerals and as such 
other resojJrces constitute a nation's natural wealth. 
These resources are not 
to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. 
Every generation 
owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop & conserve the natural 
resources qf the nation in th~ best possible way. 
It is in 
the interest of 
mankind. It is in the interest of the Nation. It is recognised by Parliament. 
Parliament bas declared that it is expedient in the public interest that 
the 
Union should take under its control the 
regulation 
of. 
mines 
and 
the 
development of minerals. [751C-D, 753G-H] 
2. The Public interest which induced Parliament to make the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.