M/S.V.V. Mineral KeeraiKarantanthattu vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SHB), Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Willingdon Island, Cochin-682009; Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Willingdon Island, Cochin-682009; District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627009

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 650 of 2017** **---------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **-----------** **M/S.V.V. MINERAL KEERAIKARANTHATTU, TISAYANVILAI VILLAGE, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR.C. SAKTHI GANAPATHY.** **BY SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SENIOR ADVOCATE)** **ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SRI.GOVIND VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(SHB), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.** **3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU-627009.** **R1 & R2 BY SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC R3 BY SRI.MANI SANKAR, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL-IV, TAMIL NADU STATE ADV.SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2018, THE COURT ON 26-07-2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 650 of 2017 (E) ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** ## **----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09-11-2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER 11-11-2016 PASSED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI BENCH IN W.P.(MD)NOS.19755 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO.SHB/MISC/51/2016 CUS. DATED 21-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE FACILITY-13/2016 F.NO.C1/03/2016 TU CUS. DATED 22-12-2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10-10-2016 ISSUED BY**| |---|---| ||**THE MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO**| ||**THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER UNDER**| ||**RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF SHIPPING BILL.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS.**| ||**M.P.P. KAVERY CHETTY, REPORTED IN (1995) 2 SCC 402.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN K.T. VARGHESE & ORS.**| ||**VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.5.1988 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**INDUSTRIES (M2) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPIES OF RELEVANT PAGES OF APPROVED PLANS AND**| ||**MODIFIED PLANS FOR THE YEARS 2001.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.3.1996 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS SHOWING THE TRANSPORT TO**| ||**THE EOUS WITH RELEVANT PERMIT NUMBERS AND QUANTITIES ETC.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.1086 WHICH WAS**| ||**ANSWERED ON 2.3.2015 IN THE PARLIAMENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF RQP DATED 20.12.2008.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF A COMPLAINT DATED 22.12.2016 RECEIVED FROM**| ||**THE CEO OF AMPECO GMBH, GERMANY.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.49/CUS/04 DATED 2.9.2004**| ||**ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR F.NO.450/66/2009-CUS.IV**| ||**DATED 8.7.2010.**| ## **WP(C).No. 650 of 2017 (E)** ## **------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.2.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENCLOSURE.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 19.2.2018 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S AGENTS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.3.2018 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (SIIB) CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN.** - **EXHIBIT P22A TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 23.4.2014. EXHIBIT P22B TRUE COPY OF CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICE DATED 23.4.2014. EXHIBIT P22C TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 WITH RESPECT TO SEMI-PROCESSED GARNET RECEIVED FROM TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT. LTD., SRIKAKULAM UNIT.** - **EXHIBIT P22D TRUE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2015 WITH RESPECT TO SEMI-PROCESSED GARNET RECEIVED FROM TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT. LTD., SRIKAKULAM UNIT.** - **EXHIBIT P22E TRUE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 28.2.2015. EXHIBIT P22F TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING GARNET BOUGHT FROM SRIKAKULAM FOR THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN.** - **EXHIBIT P23A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN.** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION NO.15161/MMD1/2017-1 DATED 16.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI UNDER RTI ACT IN TAMIL ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.15053/MMD.1/2017-1 DATED 16.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.10.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT IN TAMIL ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** - **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI IN TAMIL ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** **WP(C).No. 650 of 2017 (E) ------------------------** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** ## **---------------------** |**EXHIBIT R3A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL**| |---|---| ||**COMMITTEE MEETING OF PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL BEACH**| ||**SAND MINING AND TRANSPORTATION OF BEACH SAND MINERALS**| ||**HELD ON 18.10.2016 AND 9.11.2016 AT COLLECTORATE**| ||**TIRUNELVELI.**| |**EXHIBIT R3B**|**TRUE COPY OF THE VIDE LETTER NO.M3/40365/2015,**| ||**DATED 19.12.2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R3C**|**TRUE COPY OF THE VIDE LETTER NO.M3/40365/2015,**| ||**DATED 21.12.2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R3D**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL**| ||**COMMITTEE MEETING OF PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL BEACH**| ||**SAND MINING AND TRANSPORTATION OF BEACH SAND MINERALS**| ||**HELD ON 14.2.2017 AT COLLECTORATE TIRUNELVELI.**| |**EXHIBIT R3E**|**GOVERNMENT LETTER (D)NO.121, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT**| ||**DATED 13.6.2000.**| |**EXHIBIT R3F**|**EXTRACT OF RULE 3 OF TAMIL NADU PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL**| ||**MINING TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF MINERALS AND MINERAL**| ||**DEALERS RULES, 2011.**| |**EXHIBIT R3G**|**GO.(MS)NO.173, INDUSTRIES (MMDI) DEPARTMENT**| ||**DATED 17.9.2013.**| |**EXHIBIT R3H**|**GO.(MS)NO.179, INDUSTRIES (MMDI) DEPARTMENT**| ||**DATED 27.7.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT R3I**|**FINAL ORDER NO.40/2017 TO 42/2017 DATED 21.2.2017 PASSED**| ||**BY THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.**| |**EXHIBIT R3J**|**GO(MS)NO.41 INDUSTRIES (MMDI) DEPARTMENT**| ||**DATED 7.4.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT R3K**|**COPY OF STATUS REPORT AND MEMO FILED BY THE AMICUS CURIAE**| ||**ON 20.6.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FIRST BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH**| ||**COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT R3L**|**COPY OF REPORT FILED BY THE AMICUS CURIAE ON 20.6.2017**| ||**BEFORE THE HON'BLE FIRST BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT R3M**|**COPY OF TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE NOTIFICATION EXTRA-**| ||**ORDINARY ISSUE NO.29, DATED 25.1.2011.**| |**EXHIBIT R3N**|**COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD UNDER**| ||**THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE SPECIAL TEAM HEAD ON**| ||**30.10.17 & 31.10.17 AT CHENNAI.**| |**EXHIBIT R3(O)**|<br>**COPY OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE FIRST**| ||**BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 02.11.17 TO**| ||**THE SUO MOTU PIL WP NO.1592 OF 2015 AND**| ||**CONNECTED MATTERS.**| |**EXHIBIT R3P**|**COPY OF G.O.(D).NO.45, INDUSTRIES (E1) DEPARTMENT**| ||**DATED 21.3.2017.**| **WP(C).No. 650 of 2017 (E) ------------------------** |**EXHIBIT R3Q**|**COPY OF REPORT FILED BY MR.SATYABRATA SAHOO, IAS,**| |---|---| ||**SPECIAL TEAM HEAD, ON THE ASSESSMENT OF BEACH SAND**| ||**MINERALS STOCKED IN THOOTHUKUDI, TIRUNELVELI AND**| ||**KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICTS.**| |**EXHIBIT R3R**|**COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF**| ||**MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 24.4.2018 IN THE SUO-MOTU PIL**| ||**WP.NO.1592 OF 2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS.**| ||**/TRUE COPY/**| ||**P.S.TO JUDGE**| **mbr/ 28.07.2018.** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P3 dated 21.12.2016 and 22.12.2016 issued by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, directing the petitioner to produce necessary certificates/documents viz., certificate of legally mined minerals from the concerned District Collector/transport permits along with bulk permits, certifying the legal source of such Beach Sand Minerals brought to the Customs Area for export, under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, and intimating the petitioner that it has been decided to verify the source, Beach Sand Minerals being sent for export, and requiring the petitioner to produce necessary documents secured from competent authority, respectively. Material facts required for the consideration of reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a registered Partnership Firm established to carry on the business of separation and processing of beach sand minerals. The 1[st] and 2[nd] **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 2 respondents are the jurisdictional authorities at the Cochin Port, amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. The 3[rd] respondent is the District Collector, Tirunelveli, who has addressed a letter to the Port authorities which was acted upon by the Customs Authorities. According to the petitioner, the query raised by the Customs Authorities on account of the same is illegal and without jurisdiction, attempting to interfere with free export of the petitioner's goods through the Cochin Port. Petitioner has been exporting its finished products (in the present case, 'natural garnet') through the Ports in Tamil Nadu, Andhra and Kerala. 3. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging preexport restrictions/obligations sought to be imposed by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, apparently at the behest of the 3[rd] respondent, which obligations/restrictions are completely without jurisdiction and extremely prejudicial, and if allowed to be implemented, will affect international free trade. The obligations/restrictions are also completely against the provisions of the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Policy, which alone govern exports. 3 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 4. It is submitted, petitioner applied for and obtained all necessary approvals for the purpose of commencement of its business under the relevant laws. In order to establish Export Oriented Units (EOU), petitioner floated one more Partnership Firm viz., M/s. V.V. Mineral 100% EOU with Registration No.45 of 1999 EOU for better administration and clarity. Two plants have been set up in order to process the minerals in various places of Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Tuticorin, Districts in the State of Tamil Nadu. For the purpose of EOU operations, petitioner got its plants classified as 'bonded warehouse' under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner has been the principal producer of beach minerals in the whole of the country having more than 25 valid mining leases. Petitioner has set up an integrated Beach Sand Mining and Garnet production facility in the districts of Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Kanyakumari, expending crores of rupees and the Unit of Tirunelveli is operating successfully for more than 20 years. In short, petitioner is a fully functional mining and mineral processing unit, engaged in the field of mining of beach sand minerals, and has established a prosperous undertaking, employing hundreds of workmen and 4 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** earning valuable foreign exchange and royalties, without sacrificing regulatory compliance. It is also submitted that, the beach sand minerals which are the subject of the leases of the petitioner are 'replenishable' minerals, since it is regenerated by natural forces, such as wind and tide. 5. Pursuant to various allegations raised with respect to illegal mining in the State of Tamil Nadu, the State has ordered stoppage of mining operations since 08.08.2013 until the inspection by Revenue Secretary is completed. However, units like the petitioner had created huge stocks of inventories of minerals over the years. These minerals had been mined lawfully, transported to the processing plants (with proper transport permits), processed (with proper mining lease), and royalty fully paid (with proper receipts and challans), and such minerals were then stored in bonded warehouses properly licensed under the Customs Act. According to the petitioner, these are stocks of inventories which had been generated with foresight over the years, creating buffer for future demands. Therefore, since royalty has been fully paid on these minerals, the title to these minerals vests in the petitioner. **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 5 6. However, the 3[rd] respondent passed Ext.P1 order dated 09.11.2016, essentially minutes of a District Level Committee Meeting, requiring to stop the factory operations of the petitioner and certain other operators, which led to a series of writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. It is the case of the petitioner that, Ext.P1 reveals that the entire basis of the said order is a wrong assumption by the 3[rd] respondent that the extraction of minerals by the petitioner, beyond the projected reserves, tantamount to illegal mining. It is also submitted that, the 3[rd] respondent is under the impression that if any stocks of minerals are found beyond the projected reserves set forth in the mining plans, such stocks are “illegally mined”. Therefore, Ext.P1 order cannot be sustained under law. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, as per Ext.P1(a) order dated 11.11.2016, directed to maintain ' _status quo_ '. It is also stated that, Ext.P1 order is challenged by the petitioner in Revision before the Mines Tribunal and the said Revision Application is also pending. 7. While so, petitioner had moved about 3107 MT of Natural Garnet from its 100% EOU and other units for export through Cochin Port. Preceding such export, the goods have 6 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** been warehoused in private bonded warehouses duly licensed by the Customs Authorities. Out of the said quantity, 140 MT was thereafter cleared from the warehouses and exported on 17.12.2016. The remaining quantity lying in the warehouse is scheduled to be exported forthwith. 8. In the meanwhile, petitioner is served with Exts.P2 and P3 communications by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents. The case of the petitioner is that, the Port Authorities have nothing to do with the same. On enquiry with the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, it is informed that they have received a letter from the 3[rd] respondent that export of minerals such as Garnet should not be permitted without producing valid transport permits. Therefore, it is submitted that, Exts.P2 and P3 are completely lacking in jurisdiction, and if allowed to operate, will have serious irreparable and far-reaching prejudicial consequences to free trade internationally. 9. The said submission is based on the contention that export of goods out of the country is principally governed by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Foreign Trade Policy (currently for the years 2015 to 2020), framed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 7 1992. According to the petitioner, going by the provisions of the Customs Act and allied Regulations and Policies, the action now initiated by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents can never be sustained under law. It is also stated that, the issue with respect to the export is clarified by the Government of India as per Ext.P4 letter dated 10.10.2016. It is reiterated that all the procurement of raw material by the petitioner is under valid transport permit obtained from the Assistant Director of Geology prior to August, 2013. However, there is no law which mandates transport permit thereafter from the petitioner's factory/100% EOU for export. 10. That apart, as per Sec.3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, the Central Government may by order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for the development and regulation of foreign trade for facilitating imports and increasing exports. According to Sec.3(2), the Central Government may also, by order published in the Official Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, in all cases or in specified classes of cases and subject to such exemptions, if any, as may be made by or under the order, the import or **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 8 export of goods. According to Sec.3(3), all goods to which any order under sub-section (2) applies shall be deemed to be goods the import or export of which has been prohibited under Sec.11 of the Customs Act, 1962, and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly. Therefore, according to the petitioner, this will establish that for regulating or imposing conditions, it is mandatory that the Central Government should pass order and publish in the Gazette. According to subsection (4) of Sec.3, no permit or licence shall be necessary for export. The Central Government as per Sec.5, formulates and announces by notification in the official gazette, the Foreign Trade Policy. 11. Accordingly, the Central Government notified the Foreign Trade Policy for the years 2015 to 2020, and as per para 1.03, Chapter 1A of Foreign Trade Policy, the Director General of Foreign Trade by means of public notice notified the Hand Book of procedures including appendixes etc., laying down the procedures to be followed by the exporters or importers. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that, in accordance with the Foreign Trade Policy launched by the Government of India, no other authority 9 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** is vested with any power to interdict or create fetter for export of the products in accordance with the Foreign Trade Policy. 12. So also, it is submitted that, Garnet and Ilmenite and for that matter the other minerals normally exported by the petitioner are freely exportable and no condition whatsoever is imposed under the EXIM Policy or Indian Trade Classification Appendix with respect to such export. These are, in any case, neither prohibited nor restricted goods, and there is any condition imposed to be specified in the export save and except the mandatory documents mentioned under the Foreign Trade Policy. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is quite obvious that the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents have acted at the behest of a letter issued by the 3[rd] respondent District Collector, who has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue such a direction pertaining to exports, and any such direction cannot even be looked into, leave alone implemented by the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, while exercising the powers under the Customs Act, read with Foreign Trade Development Act and the Foreign Trade Policy, all of which unequivocally show that no such restrictions can be imposed. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner in the writ 10 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** petition in order to secure the reliefs specified above. 13. Third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, since the cause of action for filing the writ petition arise out of the decision taken by the District Level Committee on prevention of illegal beach sand mining and transportation of beach sand minerals during the meeting held on 09.11.2016 at Tirunelveli District, State of Tamil Nadu. 14. It is further submitted that, a total number of 52 mining leases have been granted to private persons in _patta_ and Government puramboke lands for mining raw sand, Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimanite etc., in Tirunelveli District. The Government of Tamil Nadu, as per an order dated 08.08.2013, issued orders forming a Special Team headed by the Secretary, Revenue Department to inspect and verify in terms of Sec.24 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, to identify as to whether there is illicit mining by the lessees of beach sand minerals in Tuticorin District. Accordingly, orders were issued to conduct the 11 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** inspection. 15. That apart, the State of Tamil Nadu further directed the District Collectors of Tirunelveli, Tiruchirapalli, Kanyakumari and Madurai Districts to stop the mining operations pending completion of the inspections by the Special Team. Further, the Assistant Directors (Mines) of the above specified districts were also directed to stop immediately the issuance of transport permits for Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile etc. etc., with respect to the leases granted to private parties in the respective Districts till the inspections are completed. As directed by the State Government, the Industries Department stopped the mining operations for raw sand and beach sand minerals, such as, Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Sillimanite etc. etc. in Tirunelveli and other Districts, and the transport permits were also stopped from the month of September 2013, onwards. The orders passed by the Government stopping the mining operations of beach sand minerals and issuance of transport permits, for the beach sand minerals are very much in force even now, and the connected writ appeals filed by he State Government are pending before the Madras High Court. ## **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 12 16. Above all, as per a Government Order dated 27.07.2015, the State Government have constituted District Level and Taluk Level Committees to look into the complaints on illegal beach sand mining and transportation of beach sand minerals, and for taking appropriate action by the authorities concerned, and the District Level Committee headed by the 3[rd] respondent is periodically reviewing the functioning of the Taluk Level Committee by suggesting suitable measures for prevention of illegal mining and transportation of beach sand minerals. 17. It is further submitted that, the details of quantum of raw sand and processed minerals permitted by the office of the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli for transportation from 2000-2001 to 2013-2014, the royalty remitted by the lessees for the said periods and the actual quantum of processed minerals transported (both local sale and export) by all the beach mineral sand lessees were compared with the total quantum of raw sand, garnet, ilmenite, rutile, zircon, sillimanite etc. etc. permitted in the approved mining plan/scheme of mining for the relevant periods and it reveals that all the beach sand mineral, lessees 13 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** have unlawfully mined and transported a huge quantum of beach sand minerals during the period from 2000-01 to 201516. 18. Further, it reveals that the entire quantum of processed minerals/semi-processed minerals and raw sand said to be available with all the beach sand mineral, lessees in their pre-concentration plants, separation plants and other storing places, are illegally mined, illegally transported and illegally stored one by contravening the provisions of Section 4(1) & 4(1-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The details of production of raw sand and processed minerals as furnished by the petitioner company before the Taluk Level Committee for the period from 2000-01 to 2016-17 were verified with the mining lease-wise transport permits issued to the petitioner company for raw sand, garnet, rutile etc. etc. with reference to the quantum of such minerals as permitted under the Approved Mining plan / Approved Scheme of Mining for the period from 2000-01 to 2007-08, and it reveals that the petitioner company have unlawfully mined and transported a huge quantum of raw sand, garnet, ilmenite etc. etc. 14 ## **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 19. Likewise, for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, petitioner unlawfully mined and transported huge quantum of raw sand, garnet, ilmenite etc. etc., the details of which are furnished hereunder: |**Sl.No.**|**Mineral**|**Quantum of**<br>**minerals**<br>**unlawfully mined**<br>**and transported**<br>**from 2000-01 to**<br>**2007-08.**<br>**(In Metric Tonnes)**| |---|---|---| |1|Raw sand|9,82,088| |2|Garnet|1,91,077.72| |3|Ilmenite|5,04,617.444| |4|Rutile|1350| |5|Zircon|3500| |**Sl.No.**|**Mineral**|**Quantum of**<br>**minerals**<br>**unlawfully mined**<br>**and transported**<br>**from 2008-09 to**<br>**2012-13.**<br>**(In Metric Tonnes)**| |---|---|---| |1|Raw sand|14,04,692| |2|Garnet|1,53,731| |3|Ilmenite|5,97,539| |4|Rutile|62078| |5|Zircon|41756| |6|Sillimanite|40700| |7|Leucoxene|2650| 15 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 20. Therefore, according to the 3[rd] respondent, after the stopping of mining operations, during the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, petitioner has unlawfully transported a quantum of 9,65,948.8 metric tonnes of beach sand minerals. The above findings of the District Level Committee on prevention of illegal beach sand mining and transportation of beach sand minerals have been communicated to the petitioner as per its order dated 09.11.2016. 21. Further, it is submitted that the royalty accounts settled by the then District Collector, Tirunelveli in the proceedings dated 30.09.2012 in respect of the petitioner company for the quantum of raw sand transported for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12 reveals that the _ad-valorem_ values for the year-wise quantum of garnet, ilmenite, rutile etc. etc. exported by the petitioner company for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12 were not properly arrived at separately for computation of royalty for the quantum of such minerals exported as stipulated under Rule 64-D of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, the entire settlement of royalty accounts for the quantum of raw sand transported for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12 are to be treated as null 16 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** and void. The deviations detected by the District Level Committee in the settlement of royalty accounts have been communicated to the petitioner company by the 3[rd] respondent as per letter dated 20.02.2017. In view of the large scale violations detected in the transportation of raw sand and beach sand minerals by all the lessees, including the petitioner herein, for the period from 2000-2001 to 2015-2016 and all the beach sand mineral lessees are not having stock of legally mined minerals, it was resolved to request the Customs Authorities concerned to insist for the production of transport permits along with bulk permits or certificate of legally mined minerals obtained from the District Collector concerned, before allowing export of beach sand minerals. 22. It was also noticed by the authorities that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were making attempts for export of beach sand minerals through the ports situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu, and therefore, the Port Authorities of Cochin, New Mangalore and Vizagapattinam have been requested by the 3[rd] respondent that the lessees cum illegal miners have no _locus standi_ for export of beach sand minerals without valid transport permits issued by Deputy 17 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** Director/Assistant Director of Geology and Mining concerned, and no export of beach sand minerals can be allowed in the absence of such permits by any competent authority. It was accordingly that respondents 1 and 2 have insisted the petitioner for production of necessary permits for transportation of the minerals. Therefore, it is submitted that, the source information is sought for as per Exts.P2 and P3 by virtue of the powers conferred under Sec.50 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, as an interim measure, all the exporters of beach sand minerals were required to produce the documentary proof obtained from the competent authority. 23. Further, it is stated that, as per the orders issued by the State Government dated 08.08.2013 and 17.09.2013, all transport permits for raw sand, semi-processed minerals and processed minerals were stopped by the authorities concerned. No stay has been granted against the said Government Orders. When the lessees filed writ petitions against the Special Team inspections headed by the Revenue Secretary, and the connected writ appeals filed by the State Government are pending consideration before the Madras High Court. It is also submitted during the course of arguments that the writ 18 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** petitions that were pending before the Madurai Bench of the High Court are all transferred now to the principal seat of the High Court and is being heard together. 24. Ext.R3(a) is the minutes of the District Level Committee meeting on prevention of illegal beach sand mining and transportation of beach sand minerals for the period from 18.10.2016 and 09.11.2016. In view of stoppage of mining operations and issuance of transport permits by the State Government from the month of September 2013, and in view of the findings of the District Level Committee that all quantum of processed and un-processed minerals said to be available with the private beach sand mineral lessees are illegally mined, illegally transported and illegally stored one, the Customs Authorities, Cochin have been requested by the 3[rd] respondent to insist for production of transport permits along with bulk permits or certificate of legally mined minerals from the District Collector concerned, before allowing export of beach sand minerals. It was accordingly that the queries were made by the Customs Authorities. 25. That apart, it is submitted that, the Madras High Court by order dated 27.01.2017 in W.P.(MD) Nos.19755 and **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 19 other connected cases, modified the interim orders to the extent that it would not entitle the petitioners to run the units in the meantime. Other contentions with respect to the submissions made in the writ petition that the minerals are replenishable are all disputed. The statistics of unlawfully mined minerals from the year 2000-01 to 2007-08 and from 2008-09 to 2012-13 provided are already extracted above. 26. It is also pointed out that, the petitioner company has filed Writ Petition No.19716/2016 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the files of the District Collector, Tirunelveli, relating to the impugned order dated 04.10.2016 and to quash the same. The said writ petition is now transferred to the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court by order dated 27.01.2017. The petitioner is also prevented to run the units in the meantime by modifying the interim order. 27. Exts.R3(b) and R3(c) are the communications issued by the 3[rd] respondent to the Chairman, Cochin Port Trust and the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise 20 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** respectively, with respect to the prohibition created and orders issued restricting mining and transportation of beach sand and the minerals derived from the same. That apart, it is submitted that, the State Government had stopped the mining operations for beach sand minerals and issuance of transport permits from September, 2013, to facilitate the inspection of the Special Team headed by the Revenue Secretary. Ext.R3(d) is the minutes of the District Level Committee meeting on prevention of illegal beach sand mining, and transportation of beach sand minerals held on 14.02.2017 shows the extent of stock of beach sand minerals illegally mined. Other contentions are also raised with respect to the illegalities committed by the petitioner, persuading the 3[rd] respondent, on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu to issue communication, in order to protect the wealth of the nation as well as the State. Other restrictions are also imposed as per the orders of the Industries Department dated 13.06.2000 for transportation of beach sand from the mining area to the plants etc. etc. 28. That apart, vehicles loaded with illegally mined beach sand minerals were seized by the Sub-Collector, Tirunelveli on 11.08.2016 and an FIR is registered. The **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 21 documents produced by the 3[rd] respondent along with the counter affidavit reveal the orders issued by the State Government as per the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as well as the Tamil Nadu Prevention of illegal mining, Transportation and storage Rules, 2011. According to the 3[rd] respondent, all the orders are issued in accordance with the powers conferred under MMDR Act as well as the Tamil Nadu Rules, 2011. However, the foundational contention advanced by the petitioner is that there is no violation of any law so as to prohibit the goods from being exported in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, Foreign Trade Regulation Act, and the Foreign Trade Policy in vogue. 29. Reply affidavits and additional counter affidavits are also filed by the respective parties, producing various documents, also enumerating the details with respect to statements and counter statements made by the respective parties. I am of the considered opinion that, such details furnished by the respective parties intrinsically traversing through the mining done and minerals extracted, stocks made etc. etc., in minute details are not at all necessary so as to consider the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ 22 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** petition. 30. I also make it clear that, even though various contentions are raised by the petitioner by producing documents along with the reply affidavits as well as additional affidavits, they are not transforming themselves into pleadings, since no amendment is made to the writ petition and the reliefs sought for against the respondents are based on alleged illegality in Exts.P2 and P3. It is also made clear that, no reliefs are sought for by the petitioner against the action of the Government of Tamil Nadu, issuing various orders stopping the mining operations, transportation etc. etc. 31. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, assisted by Sri. Isaac Thomas and Sri. Haran Thomas George for petitioner, the Additional Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, Sri. C. Manishankhar, assisted by Sri. T.N. Rajagopalan, Government Pleader and Sri.K. Krishnamoorthy, Government Advocate along with Sri. Rajkumar K.R., for the 3[rd] respondent, and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents, Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 23 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 32. The facts submitted by the respective parties are very bulky and traversing through various aspects of mining, separation of minerals, stocking of the same, transportation, illegality with respect to stocking of the same, pre-export etc. etc. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is based on Sec.2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, which is dealing with “prohibited goods” to mean; “any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported, have been complied with”. So also, Sec.11 dealing with powers of Central Government to prohibit by notification, the export of any goods. Section 11H(a) defines “illegal export” to mean; the export of any goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force. 33. “Specified goods” are defined under Sec.11H(e) to mean; goods of any description specified in the notification issued under section 11-I in relation to a specified area. 24 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, Sections 11-I to 11L impose various restrictions with respect to the specified goods. However, garnet is neither specified nor is there any restriction or prohibition imposed for the export of garnet. That apart, it is submitted that, as provided under Sec.50 of the Customs Act, dealing with entry of goods for exportation, the exporter of any goods shall make entry thereof by presenting (electronically) to the proper officer in the case of goods to be exported in a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill, and in the case of goods to be exported by land, a bill of export in the prescribed form. The proviso to subsection (1) of Sec.50 enables the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to make any entry to be presented in any other manner if the electronic entry is not feasible. 34. It is further submitted that, as per sub-section (2) of Sec.50, the exporter of any goods, while presenting a shipping bill or bill of export, shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. Therefore, the only requirement with respect to such goods which are freely exportable is the shipping bill with invoice, 25 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** and packing list must be presented to the proper officer of customs prior to the export. In sum and substance, the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that, law mandates that the exporter need not produce transport permits or documents to show the legal source of material sought to be exported so long as no such obligation or restriction is imposed either under the Customs Act or in the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and the Foreign Trade Policy. Other contentions which are discussed while narrating the facts in respect of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, Foreign Trade Policy and the Customs Act are also put forth by the learned Senior Counsel to canvass the proposition that the action of the respondents 1 and 2, insisting for production of source of minerals and transportation permits cannot be sustained under law. 35. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 3[rd] respondent has taken me through the pleadings in the counter affidavit _in extenso_ , the documents produced, the law applicable, enabling the 3[rd] respondent or the State of Tamil Nadu to issue notifications 26 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** and other orders preventing illegal beach sand mining, transportation of the same, stocking the same etc. etc. 36. The paramount contention advanced is that, ultimately if it is found that the action of 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents issuing Exts.P2 and P3 are in order, the challenge made by the petitioner under a feeble manner against the power of the State of Tamil Nadu to make legislation is a subject matter outside the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Additional Advocate General has invited my attention to Ext.P1 minutes of the meeting produced by the petitioner and submitted that, the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 18.10.2016 and 09.11.2016 have taken the decision on the basis of notification issued by the State Government mentioned in the narration of facts and the said authority is vested with ample powers in accordance with Sec.24 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as also the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Rules, 2011. 37. 'Minerals' is defined under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011 [hereinafter called, 'the Rules, 2011'] as “all minerals and minor minerals except 27 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** sand”. 'Transport permit' is defined to mean; a permit issued by the permit issuing officer, and 'transit pass' is defined to mean; a pass issued by the concerned Deputy Director for lawful transportation of any mineral by a carrier from the place of stockyard or from the lease area by the registree under the rules. So also, Rule 3 creates a prohibition, by which, no person shall transport or cause to be transported any mineral by any carrier from the place of raising or from the place of stockyard or from one place to another without having a valid transit pass. Sub-rule (2) stipulates that, no person other than the mineral dealer shall store or cause to be stored any mineral at any place for the purposes of sale or consumption. Sub-rule (3) stipulates that, no mineral dealer shall store any mineral other than the place specified in the registration certificate granted under the Rules. 38. Rule 4 deals with grant of registration and its renewal, by which, every mineral dealer and any person desirous of being registered as a mineral dealer under the Rules shall apply to the District Collector concerned, through the Deputy Director in Form-A along with application fee etc. **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 28 Rule 5 deals with processing of application by the District Collector and Rule 6 deals with transport permit and transit pass, by which, it is stipulated that, no person shall transport or otherwise remove or carry away any mineral from any place without obtaining a transit pass from the Deputy Director. Any person desiring such passes should file an application before the Deputy Director in Form-F, duly specifying all the particulars prescribed therein. Rule 11 enables any person aggrieved to prefer appeal and Rule 12 enables any aggrieved person to prefer a revision. 39. Learned Additional Advocate General has also brought to my attention the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines dated 11.07.2016, issued under Sec.11(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, by which, in the First Schedule in Part-B, after entry 11, entry 12 is inserted, viz., Beach sand minerals, that is, economic heavy minerals found in the teri or beach sands, which include ilmenite, rutile, leucoxene, garnet, monazite, zircon and sillimanite. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, as the matter stands today, the said notification is in force and 29 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** garnet, which is the subject matter of export attempted to be made by the petitioner is “specified mineral” in accordance with the notification issued by the Government of India. 40. Now, the predominant contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, since the goods processed by the petitioner for export are 100% EOU, products stocked in Customs bonded warehouses are governed by the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 and the Foreign Trade Regulation, by which, petitioner is liable to produce only those documents which were specified during the discussion of export of the goods and respondents 1 and 2 are duty bound to facilitate export, when the petitioner produces such documents, enabling the petitioner to export the goods. 41. It is also the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel that the notifications and orders issued by the State of Tamil Nadu and officers functioning under the said State cannot be termed as law as is envisaged under Sec.11H of the Customs Act, 1962, which is dealing with illegal export. “Illegal export” is defined to mean; the export of any goods in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force”. The definition contained **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 30 under Sec.2(33) for 'prohibited goods' is _pari materia_ with the aforesaid provision, by which, it means, any prohibited goods under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force and the sole exclusion made thereunder is, it will not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported, have been complied with. 42. The foundational contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that, “law” so far as an export is concerned, will not take in the provisions of the MMDR Act, the Regulations thereunder or any other law made by the State Government or any other orders passed by the Central Government or the State Government, other than the law that is enabling the petitioner and other exporters to export the goods. 43. However, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that, the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made by the State of Tamil Nadu and the orders issued thereunder are all “law” made, and therefore, the prohibition created under Sec.11H of the Customs Act, 1962 will come into play and the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents were legally correct in 31 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** requiring the petitioner to disclose the source of collection of raw materials leading to the minerals that were sought to be exported through the Cochin Port. It is also pointed out that, the entire orders were issued by the State Government in accordance with the powers conferred on the Government and the said authorities as per the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules, 2011. Therefore, it is a “law” applicable and relevant to the provisions of the Customs Act. So also, it is pointed out that, the garnet sought to be exported by the petitioner is 'specified mineral' in accordance with the notification issued by the Union of India dated 11.07.2016 and included as entry No.12. Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner that Exts.P2 and P3 are illegal, cannot be sustained under law. 44. So also, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents pointed out that, power is conferred on such authority by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II, Section-3, Sub Section (ii) dated 04.06.2015 issued under Sec.5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 32 1992, as amended from time to time, read with paragraph 1.02 of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, the Central Government has made amendments in the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, which has come into force with effect from 01.04.2015. Paragraph 2.06 is amended, which deals with mandatory documents for export/import of goods from/into India, clause (a) deals with mandatory documents required for export of goods from India, they are: (1) Bill of Lading/Airway Bill/Lorry Receipt/Railway Receipt/Postal Receipt; (2) Commercial Invoice cum Packing List; and (3) Shipping Bill/Bill of Export. As per clause (c) of paragraph 2.06, for export or import of specific goods or category of goods, which are subject to any restrictions/policy conditions or require NOC or product specific compliances under any statute, the regulatory authority concerned may notify additional documents for purposes of export or import. Clause (d) specifies that, in specific cases of export or import, the regulatory authority concerned may electronically or in writing seek additional documents or information, as deemed necessary to ensure legal compliance. 33 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 45. Further, my attention was invited to Sec.51 of the Customs Act, dealing with clearance of goods for exportation, which stipulates that, where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for export are not prohibited goods and the exporter has paid the duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under the Customs Act in respect of the same, the proper officer may make an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation. My attention was also invited to Sec.141 of the Customs Act, which deals with conveyances and goods in a customs area subject to control of officers of customs, where it is stipulated that, all the conveyances and goods in a customs area shall, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act, be subject to the control of officers of customs, and the imported or export goods may be received, stored, delivered, despatched or otherwise handled in a customs area in such manner as may be prescribed and the responsibilities of persons engaged in the aforesaid activities shall be such as may be prescribed. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs, respondents 1 and 2 are vested with ample powers to issue Exs.P2 and P3. 34 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 46. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 47. The discussion made above would make it clear that the sole question to be considered is, whether Exts.P2 and P3 issued by respondents 1 and 2 are in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act and the Foreign Trade Policy, specified above. It is evident from the provisions of the Customs Act itself that, it is not only the provisions of the Customs Act that are to be taken care of while exporting goods, but the Act itself takes care of other prohibitory laws, like MMDR Act, 1957, the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, so far as an export is concerned, the law that is to be taken into account is only the provisions of the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade Policy and the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act cannot be sustained at all. Therefore, “any other law” that is prescribed under Sec.2(33) as well as Sec.11H of the Customs 35 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** Act, 1962, will also taken in any other prohibitory law. 48. In my considered opinion, if the intention of the Parliament was only the law relating to export as specified above, it should have been made specific in the Customs Act. Having not done so, and taking into account the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957, it is patent and clear, a harmonious and coordinated action is envisioned in the matter of providing mining lease, despite the fact that the Central Government is vested with powers for making Rules. It is also clear from the provisions thereunder, the entire operations are regulated, controlled and managed by the State Government. Apart from the same, a harmonious relationship is existing by and between the Union and the States, in accordance with the Federal principles. It is also clear, there is mutual respect for the laws made by the Central as well as the State Governments, unless there is clear transgression in the area of legislation, as contemplated under the Constitution of India. Moreover, the insistence made by the Customs officers is not with respect to garnet as is sought to be exported by the petitioner. The only question raised was source of minerals. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted, all the 36 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** activities of the petitioner are in accordance with law, and after securing necessary mining permit, and transportation permit. If that is the situation, I am at a loss to understand why the petitioner is hesitant to produce such documents before respondents 1 and 2, which will facilitate the export, as is requested by the petitioner. It is not only the orders that are passed by the State of Tamil Nadu that are in vogue, the Rules, 2011 and MMDR Act, 1957 enables the State Government as well as the officers authorized thereunder to regulate, the mining operations within the State, issue transport permits between the mining area and the stockyard as well as to other areas. 49. Moreover, the Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines “law” to mean; “(1) The regime that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of politically organized society, or through social pressure, backed by force, in such a society; the legal system; and (2) The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action; esp., the body of rules, standards, and principles that the courts of a particular **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 37 jurisdiction apply in deciding controversies brought before them”. The Chambers Concise Dictionary, Deluxe Edition, defines “law” in the following manner: “a rule of action established by authority; a statute, the rules of a community or state; jurisprudence; established usage; that which is lawful; the whole body of persons connected professionally with the law; litigation; a rule or code in any department of action, such as morality, art, honour, arms (including heraldry), a game; a theoretical principle extracted from practice or observation; a statement or formula expressing the constant order of certain phenomena”. 50. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi**_ ' [2003 (155) E.L.T 423 (S.C)] and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in ' _**D.G. Exports v. Union of India**_ ' [2015 (319) E.L.T 276 (Del.)], to canvass the proposition that there can be no restriction as to export of any item, unless it is expressly provided under the Foreign Trade Policy or any law in force. In my considered opinion, the said judgments are rendered on the basis of factual circumstances involved in the said case and **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** 38 the facts on the case at hand are entirely different from the subject issues raised thereunder. 51. Learned Additional Advocate General has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Common Cause v. Union of India and Others**_ ' [(2017) 9 SCC 499], and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in ' _**Prakash Nayak v. The District Collector, Kasaragod and Others'**_ [2016 (4) KLT 102 (FB)], dealing with transportation of goods to Kerala, when there was a prohibition made by the State of Karnataka with respect to the goods transported viz., ordinary sand, and held that, once it is found that minerals include minor minerals, and that the subject matter of dispute is not in fact covered by the Sand Act in Kerala, or the Minor Mineral Concession Rules in Kerala, the prosecution procedure including seizure and arrest as provided under the MMDR Act, will have to be followed. 52. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, the Customs Authorities have issued Exts.P2 and P3 in accordance with the powers conferred on them under the Customs Act, the notifications issued by the Government of India specified above under the provisions of 39 **W.P.(C) No.650 of 2017** Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 read along with Sec.5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act. 53. Upshot of the above discussion is, there is no case made out by the petitioner, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality, arbitrariness, or unfairness on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in issuing Exts.P2 and P3. However, I make it clear that, if the petitioner is able to produce the necessary documents as is required in Exts.P2 and P3, it is for the Customs Authorities to consider the same in accordance with law. 54. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. It is also made clear, all other questions of fact and law raised in the writ petition concerning the illegality of the orders issued by the State of Tamil Nadu and the consequential action taken by the 3[rd] respondent are all left open, since I am of the considered opinion that, they are not questions to be considered by this Court, for want of territorial jurisdiction. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** St/-21.07.2018