ORDER 1. The petitioners have sought Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' right to carry on the mining operation at their stone quarries by way of blasting. 2. The facts relevant are these. The petitioners carry on their business of stone quarries in Mirzapur. For this purpose, the petitioners had been granted licence under the Mirzapur Stone Mohal Act, 1886, and the Mirzapur Stone Mohal Rules, 1944. In the year 1957, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, was enacted by the Parliament with a view to take over under the control of the Union Government the regulation of mines and development of minerals. Under S. 15 of the said Act, the power to frame Rules had been delegated to the State Government for regulating the grant of quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concessions in respect of the minor minerals, and for purposes connected with the same. In pursuance thereof, the State of U.P. passed U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, R. 2(7) defines "Minor minerals". R. 3 lays down : "No person shall undertake any mining operations in any area within the State of any minor mineral to which these rules are applicable except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease or mining permit granted under these rules : Provided that nothing shall affect any mining operations undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease or permit duly granted before the commencement of these rules: (2) No mining lease or mining permit shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of these rules." Under sub-rule (4) of R. 1 of the aforesaid Rules, a notification had been issued by the State of U.P. by which the provisions of these Rules were made applicable in the district of Mirzapur. Chapter VI of the aforesaid Rules deals with mining permits. As, in the instant case, we are concerned only with the grant of mining permits, we need not refer to any other provision of the Rules. An application for the grant of a mining permit is required to be given under R. 52. Rule 53 deals with its disposal. Chapter VI of the aforesaid Rules deals with mining permits. As, in the instant case, we are concerned only with the grant of mining permits, we need not refer to any other provision of the Rules. An application for the grant of a mining permit is required to be given under R. 52. Rule 53 deals with its disposal. The said R. 53 reads : "The Officer authorised to grant the permit may, after making such enquiries as may be deemed necessary may refuse to grant the permit, or by an order grant it for the whole or a part of the area applied for and subject to such terms and conditions as the said officer may consider necessary." 3. In the instant case, the petitioners came to file a writ petition in this Court when permits were not being issued to them. On 11-10-1985, the petitioners obtained the following stay order : "Issue notice. If the petitioners were holding a mining licence under the Stone Mohal Act, 1886, and the rule framed thereunder in 1944, the petitioners shall on their applying for renewal of licence under these Act and the Rules and on their depositing the requisite fee the petitioners shall be granted a renewal licence and the petitioners shall be allowed to carry on the mining operations on payment of royalty under the old Act. However, it will be open to the respondents to suitably modify the renewal lease in accordance with S. 16 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957". 4. The mining permit was issued to the petitioners in Form 10. It was, however, mentioned in this permit that : (XXXXXXXXXXX) 5. As the petitioners felt aggrieved by the imposition of the aforesaid condition of requiring them to obtain the permit under the Explosives Act and the Rules framed thereunder, they have filed the present writ petition. 6. 4. The mining permit was issued to the petitioners in Form 10. It was, however, mentioned in this permit that : (XXXXXXXXXXX) 5. As the petitioners felt aggrieved by the imposition of the aforesaid condition of requiring them to obtain the permit under the Explosives Act and the Rules framed thereunder, they have filed the present writ petition. 6. The contention of the petitioners' learned counsel raised before us was that neither the provisions of the Stone Mohal Act, 1886 and the rules framed thereunder nor the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1963 by the State of U.P. place any restriction on the rights of the petitioners to carry on mining operations at their stone quarries by blasting, hence the requirement of obtaining a licence under the Rules framed under the Explosives Act was not applicable to them. 7. In our opinion, the stand taken by the respondents is in accordance with law and, consequently, the petition is liable to be rejected summarily. Under R. 53, which has been quoted above, it would be found that the permit can be granted on such terms and conditions as the officer granting the same may consider necessary. Under this rule, the officer authorised to grant the permit is entitled to take into account the conditions of other laws and rules laying down the requirement of obtaining a licence before blasting the quarry. To ignore the provision of the Explosives Act and the Rules framed thereunder, which requires the obtaining of a licence under it for blasting the stone quarry, would amount to ignoring the provisions of law. R. 55 which deals with issuing of mining permit clearly provides that a mining permit in Form MM-10 would contain such additional terms and conditions in respect of which a direction has been issued by the officer authorised to grant the same. Reading Rr. 53 and 55 together, it would appear that the terms and conditions of the licence have not to be confined to Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. 8. Explosives Act, 1884, had been passed to regulate, amongst others, the use of explosives. Under Ss. 5 and 7, the power to make rules have been conferred on the Central Government. 8. Explosives Act, 1884, had been passed to regulate, amongst others, the use of explosives. Under Ss. 5 and 7, the power to make rules have been conferred on the Central Government. In exercise of this power, the Central Government had framed Explosives Rules, 1940. R. 81 of the 1940 Rules provides that no explosive shall be used without a licence to be granted under those Rules. R. 83, however, provides that no licence would be necessary by any person for his own private use and not for the sale of gun powder not exceeding 15 Kilograms. These 1940 Rules have been repealed by R. 186 of the Rules made by the Central Government in 1983, which are known as Explosives Rules 1983. R. 113 deals with licence for possession, sale and use of explosives. Under R. 114, it has been laid down that notwithstanding anything contained in R. 113, no licence shall be necessary for the possession of explosives in the case of one of the conditions mentioned therein. One of the conditions laid down is in Cl. (c), which provides that no licence would be required by any person for his own private use and not for sale of gun powder not exceeding 5 Kilograms in any State. 9. From the above, it would appear that initially no licence was required under the Explosives Rules in case where a person required explosives below 15 Kilograms for his personal use. It has now been reduced to 5 Kilograms. It is, however, important to note that this exemption clause applies only when explosive is required by any person for his personal use. 10. In the instant case, in para 31 of the petition it has been stated that about 15 Kilograms of explosive materials would be needed for blasting at the petitioners' stone quarries. From the admission, therefore, made in this para it is clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to blast their quarries without obtaining the licence under the Explosives Rules, 1983. Blasting is the process of fragmenting a solid body as rock. The amount of explosive material required to break a mass of rock effectively is proportional to that mass. There are three types of explosives which are used for blasting: (1) low explosives, (2) high explosives, and (3) nuclear explosives. It is, however, not necessary for us to go into the details of the same. The amount of explosive material required to break a mass of rock effectively is proportional to that mass. There are three types of explosives which are used for blasting: (1) low explosives, (2) high explosives, and (3) nuclear explosives. It is, however, not necessary for us to go into the details of the same. It would appear that, in the instant case, when the petitioners required about 15 Kilograms of explosives, on their own admission, they could not blast at their stone quarry without obtaining the explosive licence. We are not also prepared to accept that the use of blasting for stone quarries could be considered as personal use within the meaning of R. 114(c). That is a commercial use and commercial use would not be covered by the expression "personal use". This is also a reason for us to hold that the argument of the petitioners' learned counsel that no licence is required under the Rules is not correct. Annexure 1 has wrongly made a mention of R. 81. In fact, the authorities should have referred to the Rules of 1983 and not to the 1940 Rules, which, as already stated above, has been repealed. Under the Rules of 1983, the limit has been reduced from 15 Kilograms to 5 Kilograms. 11. We have already negatived the submission of the petitioners' learned counsel that merely because there was no provision of obtaining a licence under the Explosives Rules, 1983, therefore, the authorities could not insist upon obtaining of the same by the petitioners. The authorities have, to our mind, acted in accordance with the Rules and rightly gave it out to the petitioners that they would not permit the petitioners to carry out the mining operations by way of blasting till they had not obtained licence under the provisions of the Explosives Rules. Such an insistence is although in accordance with the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules but even if that has not been mentioned in these Rules, the petitioners could not blast their stone quarries without obtaining a licence under the Explosives Rules. 12. In Laxman Prasad v. State, 1984 All LJ 367, a Division Bench of this Court has considered about the rights which a person had under the Stone Mohal Act, 1886. 12. In Laxman Prasad v. State, 1984 All LJ 367, a Division Bench of this Court has considered about the rights which a person had under the Stone Mohal Act, 1886. The Division Bench held that U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, became applicable to quarry leases in the district of Mirzapur with effect from 1979, hence there appears to be no escape from the position that with effect from the date when the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, were enacted and were made applicable in the district of Mirzapur, it excluded the Rules framed under the Mirzapur Stone Mohal Act, 1886. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to S. 16 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, for preservation of their rights of quarry. This question was also considered by the Division Bench and it was held that S. 16(1)(a) makes all mining leases granted before the commencement of 1972 liable to be brought into conformity with the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 13. Apart from the controversy as to whether mining leases granted before the commencement of Art 56 of 1972 were liable to be brought into conformity with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, it is apparent that the renewal of the lease had to be done in accordance with the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. In this connection, the Division Bench in the aforesaid case held : "They had right under a licence which was liable to be renewed each year on an application being made and the requisite fee being paid ................ The petitioners' rights were annual. They were liable to be renewed, but they were also liable to be cancelled. Hence, they cannot be equated either on the perpetual lessee right or on the right like that of an owner." 14. In the instant case, we have enacted above that the petitioners had applied for mining permits being given to them, under U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. When there was a dispute with regard to getting of those permits, the petitioners filed a writ petition and obtained stay order which has been quoted above. In the instant case, we have enacted above that the petitioners had applied for mining permits being given to them, under U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. When there was a dispute with regard to getting of those permits, the petitioners filed a writ petition and obtained stay order which has been quoted above. Thereafter, the petitioners were given mining permits, but they were told that for operation of their quarries it was necessary to obtain a licence or no objection certificate from the authority appointed under the Explosives Act. The effect of not obtaining the licence or no objection certificate under the Explosives Act has already been dealt with by us in detail. 15. For completing the narration of law in this connection, we may refer to R. 155 of the Explosives Rules, 1983, which deals with the grant of licence. The necessary provision in so far as the present case is concerned is contained in sub-rule (6) of R. 155. It says : "No licence to import explosive shall be necessary in cases where the explosives imported : (1) ......................... (2) can be possessed without a licence under R. 114." But, even for this purpose, a certificate would be required in Form 23. The reason being that it is on the authorities of the Explosives Act that can determine whether the requirement would be less than 5 Kilograms or more. The authorities would have to investigate into the various facts before granting the certificate in Form 23. Thus, it appears to us that the argument of the petitioners' learned counsel that they were not at all required to apply and to obtain a licence under the Explosives Rules 1983 is not correct. 16. Dealing with the uselessness of obtaining a licence by a person who needs explosives up to 5 Kilograms counsel for the petitioners urged that since the villages where the stone quarries are found are sparsely populated, there could be no point in insisting upon a licence or a certificate of the authorities under the Explosives Act. It may be mentioned in this connection that a person who obtains licence under the Explosives Rules, 1983, is required to comply with several pre-requisites and he is to take a lot of precautions which are to be in conformity with the Rules which give the details in respect of the same. It may be mentioned in this connection that a person who obtains licence under the Explosives Rules, 1983, is required to comply with several pre-requisites and he is to take a lot of precautions which are to be in conformity with the Rules which give the details in respect of the same. These precautions are not for the villagers where the quarries are situated, but for the person who works in the same, including lease holders or the owners. We, therefore, reject this submission also. 17. For what we have said above, we find no merit in this petition and reject the same summarily.