V.P. PITHUPITCHAI AND ANR. versus THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 30-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V.P. PITHUPITCHAI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU 
APRIL 30, 2003 
[RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957-Section 
J(a), J(e)-Seashell-Whether a lime shell and as such a mineral within the 
meaning of the Act-Held, such issue is to be determined with extensive research C 
by_ technically competent person-In absence thereof it cannot be said that 
seashell is lime shell and hence a mineral within the meaning of the Act-
Second Schedule to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) 
Act, 1957, Entries 28 and 14. 
Words and Phrases: 
D 
'Minera/'-Meaning of 
Appellants collected seashells from lands along the seashore and 
traded in them. State Government issued an order that seashells are major 
minerals as they arc the same as 'lime shell' which is classified as a major E 
mineral under the Second Schedule to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation 
and Development) Act, 1957. The Collector then called upon appellants to 
take out leases and pay royalty on seashells at the rates prescribed for lime 
shell in the Second Schedule to the Act. The appellants challenged the order. 
The Single Judge of the High Court held that as seashells are dug out from 
the earth, they are minerals and that seashells were not included in the F 
Second Schedule to the Act, thus royalty could not be levied on seashells 
in the absence of any Government notification. The State Government 
appealed. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal. It held that the word 
"lime" in item 14 of the Second Schedule includes seashells "in this part of 
the country" and, therefore, was subject to levy of royalty as a major G 
mineral. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Seashells cannot be termed to be 'mineral' within the 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A meaning of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 
1957. (1048-B, q 
B 
1.2. A distinction must be drawn between (i) a substance identified 
as a mineral, (ii) a substance containing minerals (for example bones which 
contain large percentage of calcium and phosphate and to some extent 
carbonate) and (iii) a substance which may be the original source of a 
mineral (for example plants which after being subjected to millions of years 
of geological processes ultimately become coal). In the first case, the 
classification of a substance as a mineral is simple. But ·the bones in the 
second class and trees in the third class can hardly be termed to be minerals 
C although they may contain or ultimately result in a mineral. Seashells may, 
like bones, contain calcium carbonate, and may also like trees, through a 
geological process result in a mineral such as limestone. But it cannot be 
said that a seashell in its original form is a mineral. (1052-G, H; 1053-A( 
1.3. The Appellate Court was not justified in arriving at the meaning 
D of the word "limeshell" by treating it as a compound word, as if it were a 
term evolved for the purposes of the Act by the Central Government. It 
must be assumed that Parliament has used the word 'limeshell' with a 
purpose. Besides even if lime may be a product of seashells, unprocessed 
seashells cannot be equated with lime. Had 'limeshells' meant seashells and 
E nothing more, Parliament would have referred to it as such without 
resorting to convoluted description of a familiar object. The submission 
that seashell was nothing but a synonym for 'limeshell' cannot be accepted. 
There are three separate entries in the Second Schedule in which the word 
'lime' finds place. The first is Entry 26 which specifies 'limestone', the 
second 'Lime Kankar' under Entry 27 and the third is Entry 28 which 
F refers to 'Limcshcll'. Further while seashells may evolve geologically into 
a form of limestone, it is not limestone. ( 1053-B-D( 
1.4. The issue whether seashell is mineral for the purposes of the Act, 
could not be determined without extensive research by technically 
G competent persons. The Government Order does not show that the State 
Government had acted on the finding of any acknowledged expert. The 
determination that seashells is lime-shell and a major mineral within the 
meaning of the Act is not based upon any material whatsoever. Further 
even the definitions put forward by the respondent in the counter affidavit 
do not indicate that seashells by themselves are limeshell. Also the reason 
H given 

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