ORDER : B. Pugalendhi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the illegal sand mining and transportation is curtailed by installation of closed circuit television video with internet protocol in all major roads at reasonable distance. 2. The concern of the writ petitioner is that though there are several toll plazas all over the State, huge quantities of sand are transported with the help of the officials. Therefore, by installing closed circuit television video with the internet protocol, the illegal excavation and transportation of sand can to some extent be checked and curtailed. Though the provision under Section 23(c) of the Mines and Mineral (Development Regulation) Act, 1957, empowers the State Government to make necessary Rules to prevent the illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals, no appropriate steps were taken by the Government, to prevent the illegal mining activities and therefore, there are illegal mining activities taking place in Tamil Nadu, particularly in Cauvery river Basin. 3. Taking cognizance of this writ petition, this Court by order dated 01.03.2019 has raised the following queries. 1. Number of FIRs filed with regard to the illegal sand quarrying and illegal transportation for the past five years through Tamil Nadu (District wise details to be given)? 2. In how many cases, final reports have been filed and give the details? 3. Whether the sand mining in Tamil Nadu is being illegally transported to other States. If it is so, how many cases have been filed and whether the vehicles are seized and file a status report to that effect.? 4. Whether steps have been taken to establish Special Courts providing for speedy trial as per Rules? 5. Whether the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of This Court for Constitution of Special Bench has been complied with? 4. In response, the respondent has filed a report on 22.03.2019 that 6728 vehicles have been seized during 2013-2014, 6623 vehicles have been seized during 2014-15, 5146 vehicles have been seized during 2015-2016, 8786 vehicles have been seized in the year 2016-17 and 17320 vehicles have been seized in the year. 5. 4. In response, the respondent has filed a report on 22.03.2019 that 6728 vehicles have been seized during 2013-2014, 6623 vehicles have been seized during 2014-15, 5146 vehicles have been seized during 2015-2016, 8786 vehicles have been seized in the year 2016-17 and 17320 vehicles have been seized in the year. 5. Further it is stated that the Director of Geology and Mining Department, has requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai - 9, to form a Special Court vide his letter R.C. No. 8981/MM6/2018, date 26.02.2019 and the same is under active consideration. It is stated that 52 check posts are functioning across the State to monitor the vehicles. 6. Though several vehicles have been seized for illegal transportation, there is no detail with regard to the number of vehicles confiscated as contemplated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 7. Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 stipulates that any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things used for raising, transporting any mineral from any land without any lawful authority shall be liable to be seized and those tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things seized under Sub Section 21(4) are liable to be confiscated under Section 21 (4A) of the Act by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Sub Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Though Section 21(4A) of the Act mandates confiscation of the vehicles, tool used for illegal mining, apparently no vehicle nor any tool was confiscated by- the authorities so far. Similarly, in G.O. Ms. No. 135, - Industries (MMA1) Department, dated 13.11.2009, while reconstituting the District Level Task Forces and Taluk Level Task' Forces certain responsibilities have been fixed upon the Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, Officer in charge of the area that they shall be held responsible for not taking proper action against the offender as against the illegal mining. The District Collectors are directed to take departmental action against those erring officials. Though this Government Order was issued as early as on 13.11.2009, no action was taken against any of the Village Administrative Officer or Tahsildars so far. 8. The illegal mining of river sand is alarming in Tamil Nadu, particularly in river Cauvery. The District Collectors are directed to take departmental action against those erring officials. Though this Government Order was issued as early as on 13.11.2009, no action was taken against any of the Village Administrative Officer or Tahsildars so far. 8. The illegal mining of river sand is alarming in Tamil Nadu, particularly in river Cauvery. The data regarding illegal transportation can very well be ascertained from the National Highways Authorities from their toll plaza itself. But these Task Forces are ineffective and therefore, there is rampant illegal quarry activities in Tamil Nadu. In writ petition WP(MD) No. 9336 of 2016 and WP(MD) No. 16150 of 2017 this Court appointed Advocate Commissioners to inspect particular places in river Cauvery to find out whether there is any illegal quarry activities in river Cauvery. Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court in WP(MD) No. 9336 of 2016, in his report dated 25.06.2015 has stated as follows: "12. During my visit, I saw marks or vehicle suggesting illegal movement of vehicles. I also saw heap of sands dumped in for illegal transport. I also saw big pits, where sand have been removed. All these suggest there have been illegal quarry in this spot. As I was driving to the spot I also notice more than 50 lorries parked in a nearby place apparently these lorries were waiting to lift the sand illegally.? 9. In yet another batch of writ petition in WP. No. 4252 of 2017 etc, this Court by order dated 28.07.2017 Constituted a committee of commissioners consist of Mr. R. Alagumani, Advocate Mr. B. Saravanan, Advocate and Professor, Dr. P. Ravichandran, Head of the Department, Plant Science, Monanmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli to inspect the mining areas namely, Mayanur, Kulithalai, Sinthalavadi, Kadambankurichi in the District of Karur, Unniyur, Silaipilariyarputhur, Karakadu, Manamedu, Musiri(West), Pettaivaithalai, Panaiyakurichi, Kariyampetttai, Viragalur, Alampadi in the District of Trichy, Koviladi, Vittalapuram, Nadupadukai in the District of Tanjore and the Committee has submitted their report and the salient features of the report are as follows: (i) In all the quarries inspected by the Commissioners the conditions have been violated without exception. (ii) The quarrying operation has been carried out so far without marking boundaries without ascertaining the depth level. (ii) The quarrying operation has been carried out so far without marking boundaries without ascertaining the depth level. Therefore, there is 100% violation in terms of depth and extent in almost all quarries inspected by the Commission which is attributable to the recklessness in identifying the exact boundary of the permit quarry. There is no way, in the absence of boundary pillars and depth pillars, the officials and more importantly the poclain operator to know the sand mining is within the demarcated boundary or within the depth level. (iii) There is no effective mechanism to monitor the depth and extent of violation (iv) We have reasons to believe that the Tahsildars are not even aware of the duty cast upon them under the environmental clearance certificate to convene the Taluk Level Task Force to verify whether the pre-conditions were followed before commencing mining operation. (v) No attempt has ever been made by the Taluk Level Task Force to ensure the compliance of conditions 2(ii) of the Environmental Clearance Certificate. (vi) Under specific conditions No. (xxiii) of SEIAA, the mining activity and the compliance of all the specific conditions shall be monitored by the Taluk Level Task Force once in a month by physical inspection and the status of the compliance should be recorded by the Committee in the register maintained at the site. Unfortunately, no such register is maintained at the site, which leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the Taluk Level Task Force has never inspected to monitor the mining activity to ensure the compliance of specific conditions, (vii) In fact, many running quarries like SilaipillaiyarPudur, Thottakurichi, Kadambakurichi, Manmedu and all the mining sites located at Kollidam river are presenting a devastating sites due to chaotic reckless unorganised and haphazard sand mining indiscriminately for years together within the permitted boundary and beyond that. Had the authority concerned enforced Clause 5(xi) of Specific Conditions of Environmental Clearance Certificate, the damage suffered by these places could have been avoided. 10. The Government is the custodian of mineral, the valuable Treasure gifted by the nature is for the entire mankind. A duty is cast upon the Government to prevent the illegal mining and to ensure mining activities are carried out in a scientific manner. The present scenario in Tamil Nadu is against the object for which rule 38(A) was amended in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. A duty is cast upon the Government to prevent the illegal mining and to ensure mining activities are carried out in a scientific manner. The present scenario in Tamil Nadu is against the object for which rule 38(A) was amended in the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. There is rampant illegal mining activities on one side and exorbitant sand price is on the other side. The District and Taluk Level Task Forces are proved to be failure which could be seen from the reports filed in two writ petitions and moreover, no officer is made accountable as per G.O.135 Industries (MMA1) Department, dated 13.11.2009. 11. This Court has also repeatedly pointed out that no effective monitoring mechanism is put in place and in most of the cases, the alleged violators are left scot-free. 12. The object for which Rule 38A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 was incorporated for (a) elimination of indiscriminate and unscientific sand quarrying. (b) uninterrupted availability and supply of sand in a regular and orderly manner to the common public. (c) availability of the sand at affordable prices to common public thereby effecting reduction in the cost of construction. (d) augmentation of the revenue of the State Government. 13. Rule 38(A) was incorporated by way of an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959, in the year 2003. Even after lapse of 16 years the purpose for which the amendment was made is not yet achieved. The illegal sand quarrying operations are not curtailed. On the other hand, the price of the sand is not affordable for common public. The Public Works Department is conducting the quarry operations, selling the sand in the yards for Rs. 1,200/- per unit, but the sand when it reaches the common public, costs Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per unit. The Government of Tamil Nadu, has developed a sand portal namely, www.tnsand.in and there are provisions to the common public to purchase the sand through the portal. But the common public, who intends to purchase the sand through this portal has to identify a lorry which is enrolled by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has conducted a drive and enrolled 70,000 lorries in the website and through the lorries alone common public has to purchase the sand. But the common public, who intends to purchase the sand through this portal has to identify a lorry which is enrolled by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has conducted a drive and enrolled 70,000 lorries in the website and through the lorries alone common public has to purchase the sand. Apart from the common public lorry owners can purchase sand directly from this sand portal: There is no mechanism to identify the eligible person for purchase of sand. Anybody can approach the sand portal, purchase the sand and sell for exorbitant rate. Since there is a huge difference between the demand arid supply, the price of the sand stood up to exorbitant level and the block marketers and those lorry owners, who have enrolled with the Department alone are reaping the benefits. A genuine common public, who constructs with due planning permission cannot purchase the sand through the portal without the mercy of the lorry owners enrolled with the department. 14. When a private company can supply food on door step, if any order for food is placed on their portal, by informing the time of delivery, why not the Government agency deliver sand at door step? When the department is supplying the imported sand at the doorstep. 15. Food, shelter and cloth are basic needs of mankind and a duty is cast upon the Government to ensure the common public gets the same. The sand must be treated as an essential commodity and a price control system must be evolved. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the natural resources meant for all human being is judiciously exploited and it benefits the common public. The Government must revisit the object for which Rule 38(A) was incorporated in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules and to frame a sand policy. 16. This Court hope and trust that the Government would evolve an effective mechanism' to prevent the illegal sand mining and to ensure the conservation and development of sand and accordingly, issue the following directions:' 1. The object for which Rule 38(A) was amended shall be achieved by curbing the illegal mining in an effective manner and to ensure the common public gets the mineral at an affordable price. 2. The District and Taluk Level Task Forces shall be reconstituted with more officials along with experts and social activists with certain responsibilities. 3. The object for which Rule 38(A) was amended shall be achieved by curbing the illegal mining in an effective manner and to ensure the common public gets the mineral at an affordable price. 2. The District and Taluk Level Task Forces shall be reconstituted with more officials along with experts and social activists with certain responsibilities. 3. Sand must be treated as an essential commodity and a price control system must be evolved. The requirement of sand shall be decided based on the building plan approval and the Government shall also workout the possibility of supplying the same at the doorsteps as imported sand is supplied 4. Sand conservation rules shall be framed to ensure conservation and scientific mining within a period of six months. 5. The State shall either adopt conservation rules of the Central Government 2017 or to frame a separate Rule as mandated in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 629. 6. Necessary instructions shall be issued to the District administrations to comply the provisions under Section 21(4) and 21(4A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 7. A High Level Committee shall be formed by the Government with experts to ensure the conditions of SEIAA and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana are strictly complied with. 17. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.