Daljeet Singh Pathania vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the State has the power under Sections 15 & 23-C of the MMDR Act to regulate the transport of minor minerals to prevent illegal mining. The 2015 Rules, framed under these powers, provide a mechanism to ensure valid transportation and relate it to a legal source. The Court rejected the State-PWD's argument about a lacuna in the rules, stating it was an argument of desperation to overcome their omission in adhering to the rules. Contractual obligations cannot override mandatory statutory provisions. The Court found no justification for departments not following the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Rules at the time of transport. Clearing GST-paid bills after charging royalty does not legalize illegally extracted minerals. The Court directed that henceforth, all concerned authorities must ensure compliance with Chapter VII of the 2015 Rules, requiring transit passes for all minor mineral transport. For pending bills, an inquiry will be held by nominated officers from the PWD and Industries Departments, involving the contractor, to ascertain the source of the transported/supplied minor mineral. Payments will be released only if the source is legal; otherwise, action will be taken as per the 2015 Rules. The judgment also mandated fixing responsibility and accountability of concerned officials in cases of omission.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Daljeet Singh Pathania, filed a writ petition alleging that private contractors engaged by the State Government for development activities were illegally mining and transporting minor minerals without disclosing their legal source. The petitioner contended that State departments were clearing bills for these minerals without insisting on mandatory transit passes (Form-W or Form-X) as required by the Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015. This practice, according to the petitioner, led to rampant illegal mining, environmental damage, and financial loss to the State exchequer. The State, particularly the State-PWD, argued that the 2015 Rules had a lacuna, preventing determination of the mineral source after it reached the destination, thus making it impossible to take action against contractors for past supplies. The State-PWD sought vacation of an interim order restraining bill payments to contractors who failed to produce transit passes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State departments are obligated to ensure compliance with the Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015, particularly regarding the production of transit passes (Form-W/X) for minor minerals supplied by contractors? (Question of law) 2. Whether contractual obligations to pay contractors can override the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Rules and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957? 3. Whether the alleged lacuna in the 2015 Rules, as argued by the State-PWD, absolves the State of its responsibility to prevent illegal mining and transportation of minor minerals? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the State departments have a statutory duty to enforce the 2015 Rules. Ignoring these rules leads to illegal mining and loss to the exchequer. The petitioner relied on the judgment in CWP No. 2632 of 2009 titled Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of H.P. for recovery of penalties. The petitioner prayed for recovery of penalties, direction not to clear bills without transit passes, and an independent investigation into illegal mining and official complicity. Respondents' (State-PWD) Arguments: The State-PWD contended that the 2015 Rules do not empower them to determine the source of minerals after they have reached the destination and been used. They argued that this lacuna makes it impossible to take action against contractors for past supplies and that they are contractually bound to release pending bills. They sought vacation of the interim order.