JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition, which has been filed, inter alia, by a “Welfare Association” of Stone Crushers of Haridwar, namely, “Haridwar Stone Crusher Welfare Association”, which is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, aggrieved by the amendment brought by the State Government in Statutory Rules known as “Uttaranchal Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2005”), which are amended by the State Government vide order dated 31.07.2015 and now known as “Uttarakhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) (Amendment) Rules, 2015” (hereinafter referred to as amended “Rules of 2015”). These amended Rules are under challenge before this Court. 2. What has primarily to be seen by this Court is the validity of the amended Rules of 2015 itself, which is purely a legal question. A statement has also been made by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel – Mr. A.K. Joshi that he is prepared with the matter and there is absolutely no anomaly with the amended Rules of 2015 and the matter be heard at the admission stage today itself on the pure legal question of law. With consent of both the parties therefore the matter is being heard at the admission stage itself, without calling for a counter affidavit. 3. Entry 54 in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, reads as under:- “54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.” 4. The Parliament hence thought it better to pass a separate legislation in order to regulate and develop Minerals. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was hence passed as Act No. 67 of 1957 and came into force on 01.06.1958. The “introduction” to the said legislation reads as under:- “INTRODUCTION In the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of Union List entry 54 provides for regulation of mines and minerals development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. On account of this provision it became imperative to have a separate legislation. On account of this provision it became imperative to have a separate legislation. In order to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Bill was introduced in the Parliament.” 5. Section 3(a) of the Mines and Minerals Act defines “minerals”, which reads as under:- “3(a) “minerals” includes all minerals except mineral oils.” 6. Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals Act defines “minor minerals”, which reads as under:- “3(e) “minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral.” 7. Whereas Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals Act gives power to the Central Government to make rules in respect of minerals, the powers to make rules in respect “minor minerals” is given to the State Government under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals Act. 8. In the year 1999 by way of an amendment in the Act, Section 23C was inserted (Act No. 33 of 1999) which reads as under:- “23.C. Power of State Government to make rules for prevention illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals – (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. (2) In particular an without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matter, namely:- (a) establishment of check-posts for checking of minerals under transit; (b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the quantity of mineral being transported; (c) regulation of mineral being transported from the area granted under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or a quarrying licence or a permit, in whatever name the permission to excavate minerals, has been given; (d) inspection, checking and search of minerals at the place of excavation or storage or during transit; (e) maintenance of registers and forms for the purposes of these rules; (f) the period within which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority be preferred under any rule made under this section and the fees to be paid therefore and powers of such authority for disposing of such applications; and (g) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30, the Central Government shall have no power to revise any order passed by a State Government or any of its authorized officers or any authority under the rules made under sub-sections (1) and (2).” 9. This amendment in the Act has a very strong objective, which is to prevent illegal mining, its transportation and storage. This power has been given to the State Government regarding Minerals as well, a power which the State Government did not have earlier, as earlier its power were limited to minor minerals alone. Now after the amendment and after the incorporation of Section 23C of the Act, powers have been given to the State Government inter alia to prevent illegal mining, its transportation and storage of minor minerals as well as of minerals. 10. According to the petitioners, under Section 23C of the Act, the regulation is only for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and the members of the petitioner association are not engaged in mining activity per se. They do not have a mining license, as they are not involved in a mining activity. They are merely stone crushing units, and their role comes after the minerals have been excavated from the river bed and other places. They do not have a mining license, as they are not involved in a mining activity. They are merely stone crushing units, and their role comes after the minerals have been excavated from the river bed and other places. They purchase minerals from the license holders. Therefore, the amended Rules of 2015 by which stone crushing units (like present petitioner) the licence fee for two years from Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) have been enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) is totally outside the scope of the rule making powers of the State Government. 11. Another argument of the learned Senior Advocate – Mr. Raizada is that if regulation of illegal mining is indeed the real purpose of bringing the amendment Rules, it could have been very well done under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Water Prevention and Control of Pollution CESS Act 1977 and under Statutory Rules which have been framed under the above Statutes. In any case the members of the petitioner association are already paying a fee to the Uttarakhand State Environment Protection & Control Board, which is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand but enhancing fee from Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) is beyond the scope of the State Government. 12. The erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh framed Rules known as “The Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 on 26.08.1963. Subsequently, after creation of new State of Uttarakhand, the State Government also framed Rules known as “Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001. However, these rules were only relating to regulation and grant of lease relating to minor minerals. After Section 23C of the Act was inserted in the main Act i.e. “The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State of Uttarakhand, under the powers given to it in the new provision (Section 23C of the Act), framed Rules known as “Uttaranchal Minerals (Preservation of Illegal, Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005” on 14.05.2005. Initially for opening storage of minerals a license fee of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) was required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of Rules of 2005, which reads as under:- “8.(2) Every such Application shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee to be Rs. Initially for opening storage of minerals a license fee of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) was required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of Rules of 2005, which reads as under:- “8.(2) Every such Application shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee to be Rs. 3,000/-, name of the storage owner with complete address, details of storage owner with complete address, details of storage site, name of mineral quantity of the mineral to be stored, period of licence and the purpose of storage.” 13. Furthermore Rule 10 of Rules of 2005 amended by the Rules of 2015, which pertains for renewal of license for storage of mineral. The same reads as under:- Amendment of rule 10 Rules as here by substituted 10. An application for the renewal of license for storage of minerals shall be made to the district officer at least two months before the date in which, the license is due to expire along with fee of Rs. 3,000.00 and particulars of previous license. The license may be renewed up to two years at a time. 10. An application for renewal of license for storage of minerals shall be made to the district officer at least two months before the date on which, the license is due to expire alongwith a fee of Rs. one lakh and particulars of previous license and subject to the provision of these rules after inquiry from sub-district magistrate and senior mining officer/mining inspector, on the basis of recommendation of the district magistrate and director of geological mining units, the permission of renewal of storage permission by the State Government and in continuation of the given permission by the Government, for a period of two years at a time, grant of license out of the campus of stone crasher/screening plants/pulverizer and in the campus of stone crasher and screening plant may be sanction for a sanctioned period. 14. In other words for the renewal as well further fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) has to be paid by the license holder. 15. As far as reading of Section 23(C) of the Act is concerned, clearly the powers have been given to the State Government to frame rules “for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals”. In other words for the renewal as well further fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) has to be paid by the license holder. 15. As far as reading of Section 23(C) of the Act is concerned, clearly the powers have been given to the State Government to frame rules “for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals”. Under Section 23(C) of the Act the powers have been widened and the real intention behind it is to “prevent illegal transportation and storage of minor minerals and for the purposes connected therewith”. 16. “Minerals” here do not just included “minor minerals” but all kinds of minerals. In other words wide powers have been given to the State Government to frame rules in order to effectively prevent illegal mining or its unauthorized transportation and storage. 17. Section 23 (C) of the Act does not limit the powers of the State Government to frame rules only for the purposes of “storage of minerals” by a lessee, i.e. one who has a mining lease. The phrase used does not restrict storage of minerals only by the mining lease holders. It can also be a storage by a stone crushing unit as well. In the Rules, which have been framed way back in the year 2005 a provision for seeking application for a license for storage of minerals, is to be made under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 to the District Officer in Form ‘H’. This has been substituted in the amended Rules of 2015, which now reads as under:- Existing Rules Rules as here by substituted (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, application for a license for storage of minerals shall be made in “Form-H” to the concerned district officer. (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, application for a license for storage only stone crasher license holder, screaming plant license holder, Pulverizer license holder, mining lease holder, mining license holder shall be produce in four copies in form ‘H’ to the concerning District Magistrate. A copy of the application shall be returned to the applicant as a received copy. Mineral storage permission shall be made on the basis of declared standard by the State Government on the recommendation of Director, Geology and Mining in favour of mining store holder by the State Government. A copy of the application shall be returned to the applicant as a received copy. Mineral storage permission shall be made on the basis of declared standard by the State Government on the recommendation of Director, Geology and Mining in favour of mining store holder by the State Government. The stone crasher license holder screaming plant license holder, pulverizer license holder, mining lease holder and mining license holder may get permission to storage in given distance by the State Government or 20 kilometer within area of sanctioned storage of mining’s. If it is necessary to given permission of storage out of the preview of 20 kilometer in special circumstances, then the State Government may consider. 18. A bare reading of the new amendment shows that now further restrictions have been made for obtaining license for storage by stone crushing units. Sub rule (1) of Rule 8 of Rules of 2015 also says that once the mining lease holder opens the storage, he too has to take a license under the amended rules, irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner is a mining lease holder or just a stone crusher license holder. In case, they have a storage to store minor minerals or other minerals, under the amended Rules of 2015, the petitioners have to pay a fee on it, and thereafter fee for renewal as well. 19. The legislative competence or the rule making power of the State Government to frame rule under Section 23(C) of the Act, is not in doubt. The State Government has framed its 2005 Rules as well as the amendment to these Rules in 2015 under the power given to it under Section 23 (C) of the Act. The challenge of the petitioner to that extent fails. 20. The second challenge of the petitioner that the State Government could have made a regulation under the provision of Environment Protection Act or rule therein or other rules cited by the petitioner neither here nor there. It is clear that the State Government has power to frame rules in order to control illegal mining or transportation under Section 23 (C) of the Act. Consequently, this argument of the petitioner does not hold any ground and is rejected. 21. It is clear that the State Government has power to frame rules in order to control illegal mining or transportation under Section 23 (C) of the Act. Consequently, this argument of the petitioner does not hold any ground and is rejected. 21. As far as the fee being excessive is concerned and this being the main grievance of the petitioner, the fact of the matter is that this fee increased after a period of about 10 years, and hence a presumption would lie in favour of the State Government that it has looked into all the aspects of the matter before increasing the fee. Moreover, the petitioner has not stated anything in this regard in the writ petition except a bald allegation in paragraph 15 to the writ petition and nothing further has been stated as to how it is excessive. 22. Further it has been stated that there is no quid pro quo. As far as quid pro quo is concerned, the State Government does not have to justify every penny which he is being charged as a fee. Primarily the motive is to regulate that too with an intention of preventing illegal mining and hence it cannot be said that the fee is excessive, particularly since nothing has been said by the petitioner in the writ petition in this regard. 23. The validity of Rules, which are statutory in nature, is under challenge before this Court. The limited ground for challenge is either the State did not have the legislative competence to frame the Rules, which we have seen is not the case. The only other ground on which challenge could be made is that the Rules violate any Fundamental Right or any other Constitutional Right of the petitioner. On this aspect in fact the learned Senior Advocate has not even made any serious submissions. Clearly these grounds do not exist in the present case. 24. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.