Justices Surya Kant and Krishna Murari issued a notice in a batch of petitions arising from a judgment of the Meghalaya High Court dated 24.11.2022 which held that Lime Stone is a Major Mineral when it is exported to other countries. The Supreme Court granted a conditional stay on the High Court order subject to the exporters depositing a bank guarantee of Rs. 75 lakhs each.

Sr. Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Maninder Singh, K.V. Vishwanathan, Kaustav Paul, Amit Kumar, Chinmoy Sharma appeared for the State of Meghalaya and the miners and questioned the order of the High Court. The Court while dealing with the issue imposed a cost of Rs. 2 crore on the State Government and Rs. 10,000/- on the miners who sought to be party in the petition. The Meghalaya High Court passed the order on a PIL filed before it. 

All the senior advocates appearing for the respective parties argued in one voice that the High Court travelled beyond the pleadings in the Writ Petition and granted a relief which was not even sought for. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that they have valid licences for quarrying limestone and they have been paying royalties and there is neither any environmental or lease violation on behalf of the miners, therefore, there shall be a stay of the order of the High Court.

Supreme Court also impleaded the Union Government, Ministry of Mines party to the petition.

The petitioners also prayed to determine the expression "End Use of minerals" which was answered by the high court as "As a matter of fact, the State itself makes a distinction between the use of minor minerals in industry and the use of minor minerals other than in industry. The State’s Rules of 2016 have carved out the two separate schedules in such regard. When the State is as conscious in making a distinction between the use of minor minerals in industry and otherwise than in industry, the State allowing limestone to be exported when quarried or mined under a minor mineral licence is completely unacceptable and in abject derogation of the scheme of things under the Act of 1957 and the State’s obligation in terms of the Constitution to adhere thereto. When an end-use, as in the present context, is specified, the end-use must be verifiable. As in the principle of E&OE in accounting, minor aberrations may be excepted, but what comes to light here is  state sponsored subversion and a kind of misadventure that does not behove its  status."

The next date of hearing in the case is 10.01.2023.

Case Details:-

SLP (C) No. 22690/2022

The State of Meghalaya Vs. Lawyerson War

Read the order:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/39877/39877_2022_11_56_40571_Order_12-Dec-2022.pdf