Mineral regulation may include prohibition: transport restrictions sustained under delegated power, environmental protection, and public trust doctrine.

Rule 38-B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 was upheld as a valid exercise of delegated power under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and not as a State law requiring Article 304 compliance. The Court held that the rule was not ultra vires Sections 15(1) and 23-C, because the statutory scheme authorised regulation of mineral transport and storage. It further held that "regulation" in Section 23-C is wide enough to include prohibition, and rejected the ejusdem generis contention. The restriction was also sustained on environmental protection and public trust doctrine grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 38-B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 is unconstitutional as violating Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether Rule 38-B is beyond the rule-making power under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, particularly Sections 15(1) and 23-C; (iii) Whether the expression "regulation" in Section 23-C is wide enough to include prohibition and whether the rule can be defeated by applying ejusdem generis or by reading the provision as limited to illegal mining; (iv) Whether the impugned restriction is sustainable in view of environmental protection and the public trust doctrine.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 38-B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 is unconstitutional as violating Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The restriction was held to be a rule made by the State as delegate of Parliament under the parent enactment, and not a State law enacted under Article 304. On that basis, the constitutional argument based on freedom of trade and the need for presidential sanction was rejected.

Conclusion: Rule 38-B was held not to be unconstitutional or violative of Articles 301 and 304.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 38-B is beyond the rule-making power under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, particularly Sections 15(1) and 23-C.

Analysis: The rule was upheld as traceable to the enabling power under Section 23-C, and the reference to Section 15(1) was treated as not defeating validity where the substantive delegation existed. The transport and storage control provisions in the Act were read as supporting regulation of mineral movement.

Conclusion: Rule 38-B was held to be within the statutory power and not ultra vires the parent Act.

Issue (iii): Whether the expression "regulation" in Section 23-C is wide enough to include prohibition and whether the rule can be defeated by applying ejusdem generis or by reading the provision as limited to illegal mining.

Analysis: The expression "regulation" was given a broad construction in the context of mineral conservation and public interest, and was held capable of including prohibition. The Court further held that the language of Section 23-C did not justify restricting transport and storage to only illegal mining situations, and the rule of ejusdem generis had no application because the provision was plain and unambiguous.

Conclusion: "Regulation" was held to include prohibition, and the ejusdem generis contention was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned restriction is sustainable in view of environmental protection and the public trust doctrine.

Analysis: The rule was supported on environmental grounds, including conservation of river sand, protection of ecology, and the duty to preserve natural resources. The public trust doctrine was applied to treat minerals and rivers as resources held for present and future generations.

Conclusion: The restriction was held to be justified and sustainable on environmental and public trust considerations.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on all substantive grounds and the impugned rule was sustained, leaving the challenged restraint in force.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made by the State under a valid parliamentary delegation for mineral regulation may validly prohibit transport of minerals in public interest, and the term "regulation" in such a statute can encompass prohibition where the statutory object requires conservation and control of natural resources.

---