Y. Srinivasa Rao vs. Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited

Facts

The petitioner, a transport contractor, sought a writ of mandamus to declare the Telangana government's action of preventing vehicles carrying sand from Maharashtra into Telangana as illegal. The petitioner claimed to have obtained sand from a licensed quarry in Maharashtra, paid seigniorage fees and GST to both state and central governments, and possessed valid waybills. He argued that Telangana had no law imposing restrictions on inter-state sand movement and that the respondents were interfering without written orders. The petitioner also stated that due to reduced sand operations in Telangana, he, along with others, requested permission for inter-state transport, but the respondent failed to provide access to an online portal for paying regulating charges of Rs. 200 per cubic meter. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were not responding to facilitate this online booking system.

Held

The Court held that the Government of Telangana does not obstruct inter-state sand transportation but imposes reasonable restrictions. These restrictions involve approaching the Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation (TSMDC) and submitting a formal application for inter-state sand transportation, which must be accompanied by all mandatory statutory documents. Upon receipt of a complete application, TSMDC is to issue an official waybill authorizing transportation, facilitate the opening of a designated check-post if required, and depute staff to monitor sand movement and ensure legal compliance, thereby preventing illegal sand mining and transportation. The Court found that the petitioner, despite having knowledge of this procedure, failed to follow it and invoked writ jurisdiction illegally and unjustly. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit an application to TSMDC along with specific statutory documents: Valid Mineral Dealer License (MDL), District Collector's proceedings of the originating state, Permission from the Additional Director of Mines and Geology, Details of the authorized legal transportation service provider, and Details of the allotted sand quality for transportation. The respondents were directed to consider such an application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not permitting vehicles carrying sand from Maharashtra into Telangana is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, without authority of law, and in violation of Article 301 of the Constitution of India, particularly concerning the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Telangana government's actions violated Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade. He argued that any law by the State legislature imposing conditions on goods imported from other states requires reasonable restrictions and, if it affects the distribution of essential commodities, needs prior consent of the President of India under Article 304. The petitioner asserted that no such law or policy directive existed in Telangana, and the respondents' interference was without authority. He relied on previous High Court orders in W.P.Nos. 11722 and 11744 of 2012, which directed authorities not to interfere with sand transport from Maharashtra if valid permits were possessed. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that Telangana allows inter-state sand transporters through its official portal, the Sand Sales Monitoring and Management System (SSMMS). They stated that the maintenance of this website is in conformity with National Green Tribunal (NGT) directions in M.A.Nos. 478 of 2016, 479 of 2016, and 230 of 2017 in O.A.No. 516 of 2015. The respondents further contended that inter-state transporters are required to approach the Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation (TSMDC) office and submit a formal application with mandatory statutory documents for permission. The petitioner had not made such an application, despite knowing the procedure, and had directly approached the court to exert pressure.