Ajitgarh Audyogik Kshetra vs. State Of Raj And Ors

Held

The Court held that the definition of 'dealer' under Rule 2(xvi) and Rule 60(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, are not opposed to Rule 54. The purpose of Rule 54 is to restrict illegal mining, transportation, and storage, and it extends to transportation and storage under certain conditions. The Court found that the circulars issued by the government were in consonance with Rule 92, which deals with transit passes, and that Rule 92 itself was not challenged. The Court held that the requirement of a transit permit would be as given under Rule 92, and the challenged circulars should be read in consonance with the Rules. While not inclined to interfere with Rule 60(4) or other orders, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to prevent unnecessary harassment. The Court permitted members to videograph inspections to provide evidence in case of harassment and directed the department to adequately address complaints of harassment with proper monitoring, especially considering the payment of GST as proof of mineral quantity.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajitgarh Audyogik Kshetra Udyami Sanstha, representing members engaged in mineral processing, filed a writ petition challenging Rule 2(xvi) defining 'dealer' and Rule 60(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. They also challenged orders dated 13.12.2017 and 16.01.2018 compelling members to obtain transit passes under Rule 92. The petitioner argued that their members, who only process minerals and do not excavate or transport them, are unduly harassed by mining department officials despite possessing valid rawannas and paying GST. They contended that the requirement of transit passes for processed minerals violates Rule 54, which they believe limits the need for such documentation to the point of excavation and check posts.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 2(xvi) defining 'dealer' and Rule 60(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, are unconstitutional and infringe upon the rights of the petitioner's members, particularly in relation to Rule 54 of the said Rules. The petitioner argued that the definition of 'dealer' is overly broad, encompassing those who merely process minerals, and that Rule 60(4), requiring transit passes even for processed minerals, is contrary to Rule 54, which they interpret as limiting documentation requirements to the point of mineral excavation and check post clearance. They also argued that the subsequent orders compelling transit passes are illegal. The respondents contended that the definition of 'dealer' is inclusive and covers all persons concerned with minerals, including processors, and that Rule 60(4) simply requires valid documentation for minerals in transit. They argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any constitutional infringement or that the provisions are beyond legislative competence. The respondents also asserted that Rule 54, which restricts illegal mining, transportation, and storage, is not violated by the challenged provisions, and that the orders are in consonance with Rule 92 concerning transit passes.