STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus M.P.P. KA VERY CHETTY

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 19-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
M.P.P. KA VERY CHETTY 
JANUARY 19, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and DevelOpment) Act, 1957-Tamil 
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 195<>-Rule 19A, amended by 
Government Order No. 214 dated 10th June, 1992, First proviso-<iranite 
quarrying lease-<Jiving preference to State Government companies or cor-
C 
poration-Whether arbitrary-Held, No-Valid differentia exists between State 
Government companies and corporations and private miners-First proviso 
to Rule 19A cannot be said to circumvent provisions of Sec. 17A(2). 
Rules BD and 19B-Constitutional validity-Rules quashed as being 
beyond the purview of rule making power of State Government. 
D 
Rules SD and 19B and first proviso of Rule 19A of the Tamil Nadu 
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 made under the provisions of the 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, were chal-
lenged. They were struck down by the High· Court as unconstitutional. The E 
Government Orders by which these provisions were introduced into the 
said Rules were also quashed in part.· The High Court found that the first 
proviso in Rule 19A did not contain any guideline in the matter of giving 
preference to a State Government company or corporation. The grant of 
preference was left to the unfettered discretion of the State Government. 
It was, therefore, held ultra vires the constitution. The High Court quashed F 
Rules SD and 19B principally on the ground that Section 15 of the said 
Act gave no power to the State Government to frame rules to regulate 
internal or foreign trade in granite after it had been quarried. Section 15 
also did not empower the State Government to frame rules to enable a 
State Government company or corporation to fix a minimum price for G 
granite. These appeals had been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challeng-
ing the judgment and order of the High Court. 
The appellants submitted that valid differentia existed between State 
Government companies and corporations on the one hand and private 
miners on the other and it bore close nexus to the object of the said Act. H 
441 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
/ 
-
A The State contended that Rules SD and 198 were valid h_aving regard to 
the Preamble of the said Act and Section lS thereof. It was submitted that 
the rule making power of the State u/s 15(o) was wide enough to encompass 
Rules SD and 198. 
The respondents submitted that the Rules should have provided 
B guidelines for the State Government company or corporation. It was 
submitted that Rule 19A ·as amended had no nexus to the objects stated 
in G.O. No. 214. It was detrimental to persons who had set up polishing 
units on the basis of the policy declared under Rule 19-A as it stood before 
10th June, 1992. The amendment of Rule 19-A was challenged as arbitrary 
C and, applying also the principle of promissory estoppel, ought to be struck 
down. The respondents submitted that under the first proviso of Rule 19A 
the consent of the owner of the land was not made a condition and it was 
bad on that account. The provisions of section 17A(2) of the Act were 
adverted to and it was submitted that they were being circumvented by the 
first proviso of Rule 19A. 
D 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Valid differntia exists between State Government com-
panies and corporations on the one hand and private miners on the other 
and it bears close nexus to the object of the Mines and Minerals (Regula-
E tion and Development) Act, 1957. With the object of conserving a rare and 
precious mineral and ensuring its exploitation in the best possible manner, 
it is open to the State Government, the Rule making authority in respect of 
minor minerals u/s 15 of the Act, to keep mining operations in granite of 
the kind specified in the amended Rule 19-A, so far as is possible, in its own 
p 
hands, and to do this by giving preference in the grant of quarrying leases 
for such granite to State Government companies or corporations. 
[44S-B, 449-A-B] 
1.2. Consent of the occupier is required only when the holder of the 
lease desires entry into any building or enclosed court or garden. Therefore, 
G Rule 19A cannot be.held bad in law only because consent of the owner of 
the land was not made~ condition. [451-8, 450-H] 
1.3. Section 17A(2) applied when an area is sought to be reserved, by 
the State Government for undertaking mining o

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