Page 123 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] V.V. TITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI 657

to be inserted to empower the State Governments to make rules for
preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and
for purposes connected therewith. (emphasis supplied)”
(42) It is in this context the words ‘transportation’ and ‘storage’ in
Section 23-C are to be interpreted. Here the two words are used in the con-
text of ‘illegal mining’. It is clear that it is the transportation and storage of
illegal mining and not the mining of minor minerals like sand which is legal
and backed by duly granted license, which can be regulated under this
provision. Therefore, no power flows from this provision to make rule for
regulating transportation of the legally excavated minerals.
(43) As far as Issue No. (b) above is concerned, we are also of the
considered opinion that the impugned rules violate Part XIII of the Consti-
tution as the effect thereof is to fetter the freedom of trade, commerce and
intercourse under Article 301 of the Constitution. Under this Article, the
expression ‘freedom’ must be read with the expression ‘throughout the ter-
ritory of India’. Under Article 302, Parliament may impose restrictions on
the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and an-
other as may be required in the public interest. The expression ‘public in-
terest’ may include a regional interest as well. However, Article 302 is qual-
ified by Article 303 which prohibits Parliament and the State Legislatures
from making any law that gives preference to one State over another or dis-
criminates between one State and another. Situations of scarcity are to be
dealt with by Parliament under Article 302(2). The power of State Legisla-
ture to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or
intercourse, as may be required in the public interest, requires such a Bill or
amendment to be moved in the State Legislature only after receiving previ-
ous sanction from the President. The President, being the head of the State
and the guardian of the federation, must be satisfied that such a law is in-
deed required and, thus, acts as a check on the promotion of provincial in-
terests over national interest. Going by the aforesaid scheme of this Chap-
ter, it becomes apparent that when there are such restrictions on a State
Legislature, then the State Government could not have imposed such a
prohibition under a statute whose object is to regulate mines and mineral
development, and not trade and commerce per se.”
11. A reading of the above decision makes it very clear that Section 23C
applies only to minerals illegally mined and does not apply to regulate the trans-
portation of legally excavated minerals. Admittedly, the mineral ilmenite was
excavated from Norway and was shifted from that country to India. The relevant
documents have been filed and on payment of the customs duty the minerals can
be permitted to be taken.
12. In the case of the District Collector v. M/s. M.R.M. Ramaiya Enterprises
[W.A. (MD) No. 1454 of 2017] [2019 (366) E.L.T. A230 (Mad.)] it is held as
follows :
“28. As rightly contended by the Learned Senior Counsels appearing
for the 1st and 7th respondents and upon perusal of the preamble and the
entire provisions of MMDR Act, this Court can only come to the conclusion
that the parent Act, from which the rule making power is derived by the
State Governments itself does not deal with imported sand from another
country and is applicable only for the development and regulation of mines
and minerals under the control of the Union. Though it could be contended
that once the sand is imported, the same would fall under the control of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  123