JUDGMENT : The present batch of writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order contained in letter no. 239 dated 01.02.2018 issued by the respondent no. 4–the District Mining Officer, Garhwa, whereby restriction has been imposed against the petitioners for transportation and/or sale of sand excavated from the sand ghats situated in the District of Garhwa to any place outside the State of Jharkhand. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that the State of Jharkhand promulgated Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “MMC Rules, 2004”) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “MMRD Act, 1957”). Rule 12 of the MMC Rules, 2004 provides for settlement of sand ghats according to which the power of settlement of sand ghats was vested under Gram Sabha where the sand ghats were located. However, subsequently vide notification dated 25.04.2011, rule 12 of the MMC Rules, 2004 was amended and provision was made for settlement of sand ghats by public auction. The office of the respondent no. 3 –the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa initiated process for settlement of sand ghats in the District of Garhwa in terms with rule 12 of the MMC Rules, 2004 and issued auction notice for settlement of sand ghats. The petitioners participated in the auction process and were declared successful in respect of different sand ghats within the District of Garhwa. The petitioners also obtained necessary sanction of their mining plans and environmental clearances by the competent authorities and even the lease agreements were executed by the respondent no. 3 authorizing them for excavation of sand from the concerned sand ghats. Thereafter, the petitioners started excavation of sand and sold the same both in the State of Jharkhand as well as outside the State of Jharkhand for which necessary mining permits under the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 were issued to them. However, subsequently the respondent no. 3 authorizing them for excavation of sand from the concerned sand ghats. Thereafter, the petitioners started excavation of sand and sold the same both in the State of Jharkhand as well as outside the State of Jharkhand for which necessary mining permits under the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations, 2005 were issued to them. However, subsequently the respondent no. 4–the District Mining Officer, Garhwa stopped issuing transit challans to the petitioners with effect from 01.02.2018 and when the petitioners enquired about the fact of non-issuance of transit challans, it was informed that the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand has issued verbal directions for not allowing the sand excavated from the sand ghats of Garhwa to be transported or sold to any place outside the State of Jharkhand. A letter bearing letter no. 239 dated 01.02.2018 has also been served to the petitioners putting restriction for transportation and/or sale of sand excavated from the sand ghats situated in Garhwa district to any place outside the State of Jharkhand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the restriction imposed by the respondents vide impugned letter dated 01.02.2018 on transportation and sale of sand from different sand ghats of the District of Garhwa to any place outside the State of Jharkhand is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) as well as Article 301 and Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and as such, the said action is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that merely by issuance of executive instruction, no restriction can be imposed on transportation and/or sale of sand to any place outside the State of Jharkhand. In view of the provision of Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India, such restriction can only be imposed by the State Legislature by way of legislative action which is even required to be assented by the President of India. It is further submitted that no such legislation has been promulgated restricting transportation/sale of sand and even the MMC Rules, 2004 does not contain any such provision. It is also submitted that no such condition has been imposed in majority of the districts of the State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that no such legislation has been promulgated restricting transportation/sale of sand and even the MMC Rules, 2004 does not contain any such provision. It is also submitted that no such condition has been imposed in majority of the districts of the State of Jharkhand. In the impugned letter dated 01.02.2018, it has been stated that due to transportation and/or sale of sand outside the State of Jharkhand particularly to the State of Uttar Pradesh has attracted criminal elements creating law and order problem and even the local construction works are being affected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they do not have enough quantity of sand as would be evident from the chart issued by the office of the respondent no. 4. Moreover, the reasoning given in the impugned letter for putting restriction on transportation/sale of sand to any place outside the State of Jharkhand is directly in contravention of the provision of Article 301 of the Constitution of India which categorically provides for free trade and commerce throughout the country. It is further submitted that the sand of riverbeds in Garhwa is of good quality and as such, its demand is very high and due to said reason, the petitioners had put their respective bids for allotment of the sand ghats, however, due to restriction imposed by the respondent no. 4 – the District Mining Officer, Garhwa, the businesses of the petitioners have come to a standstill. The petitioners have also represented before the respondents for withdrawing the said restriction, but no heed has been paid. It is also submitted that neither the notice for auction nor the lease agreement contains any condition whatsoever restricting the allottees of sand ghats to transport/sale the sand excavated from the sand ghats in the District of Garhwa to any place outside the State of Jharkhand. Earlier also in the year 2011, similar condition was imposed in the district of Godda restricting transportation of sand anywhere outside the said district. Such restriction was challenged before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 170 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2013 by declaring the restriction imposed on movement of sand as illegal and arbitrary. Such restriction was challenged before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 170 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2013 by declaring the restriction imposed on movement of sand as illegal and arbitrary. The order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State of Jharkhand in L.P.A No. 132 of 2013 which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2013. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the allotment of sand ghats, the petitioners started dispatching the sand outside the State of Jharkhand ignoring requirement of sand in the State resulting into slow progress of various construction works being executed under the government schemes. In spite of various directions, the sand ghat lessees did not pay heed to the genuine requirement of sand for different development schemes. During the inspection of vehicles parked near the sand ghats, it was revealed that all those were used for carrying sand outside the State involving several persons from other states including anti-social elements resulting into law and order problem. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa Sadar, in his letter no. 51 dated 05.02.2018 has clearly mentioned that while excavating sand from the ghats, the mining lessees used to violate different norms fixed for sand mining. The transportation of sand used to be done by the tractors which were not even registered. Most of the vehicles carrying sand to the other states beyond the permissible capacity as mentioned in transport challans and hence, damaging the roads. It is further submitted that during inspection, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa Sadar found that sand ghat lessees were taking out sand beyond the permissible depth, thus creating environmental hazards. The vehicles engaged in erratic and illegal transportation of sand have invited possibility of road accidents also. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari vide letter no. 53 dated 09.02.2018 has also mentioned the aforesaid irregularities and recommended to take action as per law for the illegal activities of the sand ghat lessees. It is also submitted that there was a report from Vigilance Department (Special Branch), Jharkhand Ranchi vide letter no. 01 dated 02.01.2018 and letter no. 95 dated 06.02.2018 that there had been mass irregularities in sand mining activities including transportation of the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is also submitted that there was a report from Vigilance Department (Special Branch), Jharkhand Ranchi vide letter no. 01 dated 02.01.2018 and letter no. 95 dated 06.02.2018 that there had been mass irregularities in sand mining activities including transportation of the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have been allotted sand ghats situated within the District of Garhwa. In these batch of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the letter no. 239 dated 01.02.2018 whereby they have been restricted from transporting the sand outside the State of Jharkhand. The contention of the petitioners is that without any legislation to that effect under Article 304 (b), the said restriction is violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) as well as Article 301 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners have the right to carry on trade and commerce anywhere in India and the same cannot be restricted by any executive instruction. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned letter by contending that due to transportation of sand outside the State of Jharkhand, the construction works under various government schemes in the district of Garhwa are adversely affected as well as the law and order problem has arisen due to involvement of anti-social elements in the transportation of sand outside the State. 6. Though the respondents have contended regarding certain irregularities being committed by the petitioners in mining, transportation and sale of sand, this Court is not commenting on the said aspect as the only issue raised for determination before this Court is regarding the legality and validity of the letter no. 239 dated 01.02.2018 issued by the respondent no. 4. 7. On perusal of the record, it appears that earlier also, restriction was imposed by an executive order of the Deputy Commissioner Godda, whereby the settlees of the sand ghats were prevented from transporting the sand outside the District of Godda. The said action being challenged in W.P.(C) No. 170 of 2012 (Panchanand Choudhary Vs. 4. 7. On perusal of the record, it appears that earlier also, restriction was imposed by an executive order of the Deputy Commissioner Godda, whereby the settlees of the sand ghats were prevented from transporting the sand outside the District of Godda. The said action being challenged in W.P.(C) No. 170 of 2012 (Panchanand Choudhary Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), a Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.02.2013 allowed the said writ petition holding inter alia that the impugned notice prohibiting transportation of sand beyond the District of Godda is arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the Constitutional provisions guaranteed under Part III as well as Article 301 of the Constitution of India as it prohibits free trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India. The order dated 27.02.2013 was also confirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 132 of 2013 (The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Godda Versus Panchanand Choudhary), the relevant part of which is quoted hereinbelow :- “The learned Single Judge has considered various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter reached to the conclusion that part of the condition which prohibits free trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. So far as other conditions are concerned, the learned Single Judge directed the State authorities to look into the same by ensuring reasonable balance in the use of machinery and that of manual labourer in excavation of sand so as to protect the interest of the local labourer. This finding given by the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by either of the parties. Be that as it may, regarding the issue which has been challenged by the appellant-State, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge had considered all aspects of the matter in detail and we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the L.P.A.” 8. In the present case, admittedly no law has been enacted by the legislature of the State of Jharkhand with previous sanction of the President of India so as to put the restriction on transportation of sand outside the State. 9. We do not find any merit in the L.P.A.” 8. In the present case, admittedly no law has been enacted by the legislature of the State of Jharkhand with previous sanction of the President of India so as to put the restriction on transportation of sand outside the State. 9. Art. 301 of the Constitution of India provides that subject to the other provisions of Part XIII, the trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free. Further, Article 304 provides for restrictions that may be imposed by the legislature of a State on trade, commerce and intercourse among the States. Clause (b) of Article 304 provides that notwithstanding anything in Article 301 or Article 303, the Legislature of a State may by law, impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest. However, no Bill or amendment for the purposes of Clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President. It is, thus, clear that before imposing any restriction on the trade, commerce and intercourse on the ground of public interest, there must be a law framed by the State Legislature, which is to be introduced or moved in the House after the previous sanction of the President of India. 10. In the case of “State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Harihar Prasad Debuka & Ors.” reported in (1989) 2 SCC 192 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : 16. In Indian Cement v. State of A.P., it was held that the restriction provided for in Art. 301 can within the ambit be limited by law made by the Parliament and the State legislature and that no power is vested in the executive authority to act in any manner which affects or hinders the essence and thesis contained in the scheme of Part XIII of the Constitution which is against creation of economic barriers and/or pockets which would stand against the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse.” 11. It is not the case of the respondents that any law has been framed by the legislature of the State of Jharkhand after following the procedure prescribed under Article 304 of the Constitution of India so as to restrict the transportation of sand outside the State of Jharkhand, rather it appears from the record that the impugned letter has been issued on the basis of the direction of the Chief Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand dated 18.01.2018 via video conferencing. It is well-settled that where a statute requires doing a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performances are necessarily forbidden. 12. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the impugned order contained in letter no. 239 dated 01.02.2018 cannot be sustained in law and as such, the same is hereby quashed and set-aside. 13. The present batch of writ petitions are accordingly allowed.