Madras HC Seeks State Response on Challenge to Three-Month Ban on Mineral Transport

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit in response to a petition challenging the State's three-month ban on the inter-State transport of minor minerals. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel posted the matter for further hearing on August 10.

The petition, filed by P. Libin Ponnuswamy Leela of Kanniyakumari district, seeks a declaration that Rule 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011, inserted through a Government Order, is unconstitutional, ultra vires, and illegal. The Government Order imposed the temporary ban on moving minor minerals across State borders.

The petitioner, who owns a fleet of trucks, stated that he regularly transports construction materials and minerals to neighbouring States. These materials are sourced from licensed quarry operators and are accompanied by valid transit permits. He argued that the sudden embargo, announced on July 27, has led authorities to stop issuing inter-State transit passes and to halt vehicles at border check posts.

As a result, the petitioner said, his lawful business has come to a standstill, causing significant financial distress and breaching existing commercial contracts. He further submitted that he faces severe legal and financial penalties from buyers in other States due to his inability to supply contracted minerals.

Minor minerals, which include sand, gravel, and rough stones, are essential for construction activities. The State government's decision to impose the ban was reportedly taken to check illegal mining and unregulated transportation. However, the petitioner contends that the blanket prohibition disproportionately affects legitimate businesses and lacks a reasonable basis.

The court has not yet made any observations on the merits of the case. It has only sought the State's response to the allegations. The matter will be heard in detail on August 10, when the government is expected to explain the rationale behind the ban and the legal basis for the rule.

This case highlights the tension between regulatory measures aimed at curbing illegal activities and the rights of individuals to carry on lawful trade and commerce. The Constitution of India guarantees the freedom to practise any profession, trade, or business, subject to reasonable restrictions. The court will need to assess whether the three-month ban constitutes a reasonable restriction or an overreach.

The petitioner also stressed that the ban was imposed without prior notice or consultation with stakeholders, causing hardship to transporters, quarry owners, and downstream businesses. He argued that the State could have adopted more targeted measures, such as stricter monitoring, rather than a blanket prohibition.

The outcome of this case may have wider implications for the regulation of minor minerals in the State and the balance between environmental and commercial interests. For now, the ban remains in effect, and transporters are awaiting the court's final decision.