A. R. LAKSHMANNN. C. J. ( 1 ) W. P. No. 744 of 1990 ft filed by m/s. Udaya Bhanu Lime Village Industries association and 33 others and W. P. No. 8233 of 1990 is filed by M/s. Golden Hill chemicals seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in insisting royalty Clearance Certificate or Royalty paid Stamp on the Way Bills, for entering into the premises of the petitioners without any power or jurisdiction and interfering with the free transportation of burnt lime, lime, limestone, lime powder, waste lime powder, construction lime, cem powder etc. , by lorries, as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently to direct the respondents not to obstruct the free transportation of the aforementioned products or enter into the premises of the petitioners. The petitioners state that they are traders, trading in buying and selling of lime, lime stone, waste lime powder, construction lime, cem powder etc. , and that some of them are also involved in manufacturing those products. The petitioners registered their names with the sales Tax authorities and also got registration Certificates to carry on business in the abovementioned products. It is their case that they buy the products from manufacturers and sell them to various customers and that the manufacturers purchase the raw material from their suppliers/ convert them into finished products and sell them to various traders, including to their customers directly. The petitioners state that none of them are quarry owners, and that they are neither involved in quarrying nor they have anything to do with the quarrying operations. ( 2 ) AT the time of hearing of the writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing on behalf of the respondents placed before us an order, dated 25-2-1996, passed by a Full Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 9776 of 1993, which was filed by the Guntur District Lime merchants Welfare Association, seeking to declare Rule 26 of the A. P. Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1966 as ultra vires and opposed to Sections 15, 24 and 26 of the mineral Development Act, 1957, and also being violative of Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution of India. The learned chief Justice P. S. Mishra, speaking for the full Bench held as follows: heard. The learned chief Justice P. S. Mishra, speaking for the full Bench held as follows: heard. The area in which the Division bench felt difficult and for which it decided to refer the matter to a Full bench is indicated in the order of reference in these words:"if the petitioners themselves are mining operators they must satisfy the authorities that the mineral they are transporting was extracted from the mines which were leased out to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. But, if they are purchasers of the mineral from the mine owners, they must produce sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the mineral was subjected to royalty and other permissible taxes,"the type of evidence required to satisfy that the mineral which was being transported or was in possession of or being used by the person concerned was one in respect of which seignior age fee as required on the said mineral had already been paid as contemplated under sub-rule (3) of rule 26 of the A. P. Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1966, is indicated in the judgment of a Full Bench of this court in L. Venkateswara Rao v. Singareni Collieries. The Court has clearly said that sub-rule (3) of Rule 26 has been introduced with the intention of ensuring that the State is not deprived of the fee and that it imposes an obligation on any person other than the lessee or the transporter who uses or consumes or in possession of any minor mineral to produce the documentary evidence in token of having paid the mineral revenue due to the Government. The Rule has been held to be valid and the extent of proof required is indicated in the said judgment. The reference is fully covered by the aforementioned Full Bench judgment. The writ petition, if not disposed of, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The Rule has been held to be valid and the extent of proof required is indicated in the said judgment. The reference is fully covered by the aforementioned Full Bench judgment. The writ petition, if not disposed of, shall be disposed of in accordance with law. ( 3 ) THE Full Bench, while answering the reference, followed its earlier judgment in l. Venkateswara Rao, wherein it was held that sub-rule (3) of Rule 26 has been introduced with the intention of ensuring that the State is not deprived of the fee and that it imposes an obligation on any person other than the lessee or the transporter who uses or consumes or is in possession of any minor mineral to produce documentary evidence in token of having paid the mineral revenue due to the Government. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that they purchase the mineral from the manufacturers/quarry owners in bulk and sell them to their customers in small quantities and that they also pay the sales-tax and other taxes in respect of the sales made by them and which is due to the Government, and that since they sell the mineral in small quantities, it is very difficult for them to obtain Royalty Clearance Certificate. ( 5 ) WE are unable to countenance the above submission. The object of introducing sub-rule (3) in Rule 26 of the A. P. Minor mineral Concession Rules, 1966 was with the intention of ensuring that the State is not deprived of the fee which is due to it. It, is therefore, the duty of the petitioners, who are dealing in lime, lime stone, waste lime powder, construction lime, cem powder etc. , to satisfy the authorities as to from whom they had purchased the said products, and whether the sellers/ manufacturer s of the said products had already paid the mineral revenue due to the government. All that the petitioners were asked to do was to produce documentary proof in token of the mineral purchased by them from the manufacturers/quarry owners, suffered mineral revenue. The intendment of Rule 26 (3) (i) of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 is to check illicit quarrying of minor minerals and prevent evasion of mineral revenue due to the Government. The intendment of Rule 26 (3) (i) of the A. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 is to check illicit quarrying of minor minerals and prevent evasion of mineral revenue due to the Government. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, we find no illegality in the action of the respondents insisting upon the petitioners to produce documentary proof to satisfy them that the royalty due to the State has already been paid by the manufacturers/quarry owner. ( 7 ) THE writ petitions have no merit, and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.