Case Note & Summary
These three writ petitions were filed before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by two stone crusher owners' associations and one individual proprietary concern engaged in the business of extraction and removal of minor minerals. The petitioners challenged a communication dated 24 March 2022 issued by respondent no.4 (Joint Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department) requiring submission of environmental clearance certificate as a condition precedent for grant of quarry permits under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. The petitioners contended that such requirement was contrary to the Rules, the policy of the State Government, and the directions of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana. The State Government in its reply stated that as per its policy, no prior environmental clearance is required for short-term temporary permits for extraction of minor minerals, and that quarry permits are not the same as quarry leases. The central issue before the court was whether an executive instruction could override the statutory rules which did not mandate environmental clearance for quarry permits. Historically, quarry permits for extraction of minor minerals were granted for temporary periods not exceeding 30 days without requiring environmental clearance, as per Rule 59. Quarry leases, by contrast, were granted for five years, extendable up to twenty years, and Rule 11(5)(f) required prior environmental clearance for such leases. The Rules, 2013 were framed by the State Government in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Deepak Kumar, which had directed framing of rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and had imposed interim requirement of environmental clearance for minor mineral leases. The National Green Tribunal by order dated 17 February 2022 in OA No.68/2020(WZ) directed the State of Maharashtra to issue a clarification, observing that its earlier circular dated 12 December 2013 was contrary to the Supreme Court judgment; this led to the impugned communication dated 24 March 2022. The Supreme Court by order dated 9 September 2022 stayed the NGT order in relation to the appellants therein in Civil Appeal Diary No.(S) 25543/2022. The petitioners argued that quarry permits and quarry leases are conceptually distinct, that Rule 59 does not require environmental clearance, and that the executive instruction conflicts with the statutory rules. They further submitted that the NGT had decided per incuriam because it did not consider the nature of the Supreme Court directions, and that the 2013 Rules had already implemented the environmental clearance requirement solely for leases. They also relied on Rashtriya Shikshan Sangh v. State of Maharashtra, where a coordinate bench held that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules. The State Government, through the AGP, agreed that the impugned communication was issued only to comply with the NGT order, but its policy remained that no prior environmental clearance was required for short-term permits. The court heard the matter finally on 10 October 2022 and reserved judgment. In the provided excerpt, the court framed the short question and examined the background of the 2013 Rules and the nature of the provisions. The excerpt ends before recording the final holding. Therefore, the operative outcome cannot be determined from the available text; however, the court was clearly considering whether the impugned executive instruction could stand in light of the statutory rules and the distinction between permits and leases.
Headnote
A) Mines and Minerals - Quarry Permit versus Quarry Lease - Distinction in Duration and Environmental Clearance Requirement - Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013, Rule 11(5)(f) and Rule 59 - The petitioners contended that quarry permits are granted for a maximum period of 30 days and limited to specified areas, whereas quarry leases are granted for five years extendable up to twenty years; prior environmental clearance is prescribed only for quarry leases under Rule 11(5)(f), not for quarry permits under Rule 59. The State Government in reply agreed that as per its policy, no prior environmental clearance is required for short-term temporary permits (Paras 2-7). B) Administrative Law - Executive Instructions versus Statutory Rules - Supremacy of Statutory Rules - Mines and Minerals Extraction (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 15; Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 - Petitioners argued that an executive instruction in conflict with a statutory rule must yield to the rule; reliance was placed on Rashtriya Shikshan Sangh v. State of Maharashtra, where a coordinate bench held that executive instructions cannot supersede statutory provisions. The impugned communication dated 24 March 2022 was issued as an executive instruction and its validity was being tested against Rule 59 (Paras 8-10). C) Environmental Law - Prior Environmental Clearance for Minor Mineral Leases - Supreme Court Directions in Deepak Kumar and Subsequent NGT Order - Mines and Minerals Extraction (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 15; Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013, Rule 11(5)(f) - The Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana directed States to frame rules under Section 15 and required prior environmental clearance for minor mineral leases; the State Government framed the 2013 Rules incorporating this requirement in Rule 11(5)(f). The National Green Tribunal's order dated 17 February 2022 in OA No.68/2020(WZ) led to the impugned communication and was challenged as per incuriam, and the Supreme Court stayed the NGT order on 9 September 2022 in Civil Appeal Diary No.(S) 25543/2022 (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether it is permissible for the State Government to require a person interested in obtaining quarry permit under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 to submit environmental clearance as a condition precedent by issuing an executive instruction in the nature of impugned communication dated 24th March, 2022?
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt; the court reserved judgment on 10.10.2022 and pronounced on 14.10.2022, but the final operative order is not included.
Law Points
- Quarry permit is distinct from quarry lease
- quarry permits are short-term for 30 days and specified areas
- quarry leases are long-term five years extendable to twenty years
- prior environmental clearance required only for quarry leases under Rule 11(5)(f) of Rules
- 2013
- Rule 59 does not require environmental clearance for quarry permits
- executive instructions cannot supersede statutory rules
- Rules
- 2013 framed under Section 15 of Mines and Minerals Extraction (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1957 in compliance with Deepak Kumar
- Supreme Court directions in Deepak Kumar were interim until rules framed
- National Green Tribunal order per incuriam and stayed by Supreme Court
