ORDER : 1. Submissions were heard yesterday and the petition is listed today for passing orders. 2. Under clause (b) of sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the said Act of 1963'), minerals including limestone have been included in the definition of forest produce. Minerals including limestone found in or brought from a forest becomes a forest produce. Under Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short 'the said Rules of 1969'), it is provided that no person shall transport or move or attempt or abet the transport or movement of any forest produce into, within or outside the State of Karnataka except under and in accordance with a pass issued by a Forest Officer duly authorised in this behalf. Rule 145 of the said Rules of 1969 provides for kind of passes which should be issued in accordance with Rule 144. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 145, it is provided that in case of forest produce from private market or from outside the State, the passes shall be green in colour in Form 29 issued by a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Forester. 3. In the case in hand, the issue is about the beneficiated mineral. Under the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 (for short 'the said Rules of 2011'), the definition of 'beneficiation' under Clause (e) of Rule 2 reads thus: "(e)"Beneficiation" means a chemical or physical process used to enhance or improve the grade or percentage of the metal content of the mined material or mineral" Beneficiated Minerals have been defined under clause (f) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2011 which reads thus: "(f)"Beneficiated Minerals" means the mineral the grade of which is improved or enhanced after such physical or chemical process" 4. We may also note here that under sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 of the said Rules of 2011, it is provided that any person intending to transport the beneficiated mineral or any mineral from stockyard to destination within the geographic territory of India, shall apply for Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP) in Form 10 to the jurisdictional Competent Authority. 5. We may also note here that under sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 of the said Rules of 2011, it is provided that any person intending to transport the beneficiated mineral or any mineral from stockyard to destination within the geographic territory of India, shall apply for Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP) in Form 10 to the jurisdictional Competent Authority. 5. In view of Rule 144 of the said Rules of 1969, no person is entitled to transport or move or attempt to transport any forest produce except in accordance with the passes issued in accordance with Rule 145 of the said Rules of 1969. The issue is when a mineral which is a forest produce becomes a beneficiated mineral within the meaning of the said Rules of 2011, for transporting such a beneficiated mineral, it is mandatory to obtain a pass as required by Rule 144 read with Rule 145 of the said Rules of 1969. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the petition stating that e-auction of iron ore is conducted on an e-platform maintained by MSTC Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. It is alleged that the petitioner beneficiates the iron ore through an industrial process, thereby converting sub-grade iron ore into high grade iron ore which is fit for industrial application. The contention of the petitioner is that as Rule 144 cannot be applied to beneficiated iron ore, the authorities cannot insist on obtaining Form 29 for transportation of beneficiated iron ore. He places reliance on the decision of this Court dated 19th March 2020 in W.P.No.56386/2017. He pointed out that as noted in the order dated 15th February 2021, though the Apex Court has granted leave to prefer an appeal against the said judgment and order, no interim order has been granted in the special leave petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therefore submitted that the beneficiated iron ore produced at the petitioner's beneficiation plant situated in Survey Nos.27 and 28 more particularly described in prayer clause (a) is not a forest produce and therefore, the provisions of the said Rules of 1969 will not apply to the same. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition by submitting that the issue is at large before the Apex Court. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition by submitting that the issue is at large before the Apex Court. His submission is that beneficiated iron ore in this case will be still a forest produce which will attract Rule 144 of the said Rules of 1969. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions. A perusal of the prayers made by the petitioner shows that the prayers are general in nature, in the sense that there are no prayers made about a specific lot of a specific quantity of beneficiated iron ore produced by the petitioner in the plant mentioned in the prayer clauses. 9. Rule 144 of the said Rules of 1969 reads thus: "144. Transport or movement of forest produce:-Save as provided in Rules 154 and155 no person shall transport or move or attempt or abet the transport or movement of any forest produce into, within or outside the State of Karnataka except under and in accordance with a pass issued by a Forest Officer duly authorised in this behalf by or under these rules to issue such pass: Provided that no pass shall be required for the removal of:- (a)except to a port, landing place or railway station- (i) any forest produce which is being removed for bona fide domestic consumption by any person in exercise of privileges granted in this behalf or of a right recognised under the Act, within the limits of the village in which it is produced, (ii) twigs, leaves, brushwood and grass intended solely for conversion into ash manure. (iii) Thorns, whether removed from any forest under a permit, or from any place other than a forest. (b)Firewood not exceeding 10 centimetres in diameter at the thickest part, grass or leaves, the property of one person or the joint property of two or more persons, which is conveyed in quantities not exceeding one head load once in 24 hours unless it be brought to a port, landing place or railway station or to any area to which the Government may from time to time declare by notification in the Official Gazette that this exemption shall not extend. (c)Forest produce in transit within a village, municipal or corporation limits removed for bona fide purposes. (c)Forest produce in transit within a village, municipal or corporation limits removed for bona fide purposes. (d)Forest produce other than timber in transit removed on prepaid licences under the provisions in Chapter X, (e)Forest produce in transit covered by a way permit issued by persons authorised under sub-rule (1) of Rule 149, (f) Such forest produce as may be exempted by the Government from the operation of the rules in this Chapter by notification in the Official Gazette, or (g)Forest produce in any specified areas to be notified by the Government. Provided further that no pass for removal or transport of firewood outside the State of Karnataka shall be issued without the previous sanction of (a) the Government, where the quantity of 1[firewood] proposed to be removed or transported is more than one thousand tones. (b) the Chief Conservator of Forests, in other cases." (underline supplied) 10. We are dealing with the iron ore found in or brought from a forest which is covered by clause (b) of subsection (7) of Section 2 of the said Act of 1963. Therefore, it follows that in case of mineral such as iron ore which is covered by the definition of forest produce under sub-section 7 of Section 2 of the said Act of 1963, no person is entitled to transport or move such iron ore which is a forest produce except in accordance with the passes issued by the Forest Officer in accordance with Rule 145. 11. We are dealing with the beneficiated iron ore which is produced from iron ore transported to the plant of the petitioner after obtaining passes under Rule 145 of the said Rules of 1969. We are dealing with iron ore which after undergoing the process of beneficiation, is converted into beneficiated mineral. The question is whether the provisions of Rule 144 of the said Rules of 1969 will apply to such beneficiated iron ore. 12. As could be seen from the definition under clause (e) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2011, beneficiation is a process either chemical or physical which is used to enhance or improve the grade or percentage of the metal content of the mined material. 12. As could be seen from the definition under clause (e) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2011, beneficiation is a process either chemical or physical which is used to enhance or improve the grade or percentage of the metal content of the mined material. After the grade of the mineral is improved or enhanced by subjecting it to physical or chemical process, it becomes a beneficiated mineral within the meaning of clause (f) of Rule 2 of the said Rules of 2011. We have already referred to the definition of forest produce. Under sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the said Act of 1963, mineral found in or brought from a forest becomes a forest produce. Thus, when the petitioner purchases iron ore which is found in or which is brought from forest, it cannot transport the same to its factory or processing unit without complying with the provisions of Rules 144 and 145 of the said Rules of 1969. 13. When the iron ore which is a forest produce is transported after following the procedure provided under Rules 144 and 145 of the said Rules of 1969 and is converted into a beneficiated mineral, it will no longer fall within the definition of forest produce as the character of the iron ore after its beneficiation undergoes a change. Moreover, it cannot be said that the beneficiated mineral is found in or is brought from a forest. 14. Therefore, in case of mineral iron ore which is a forest produce after it undergoes beneficiation, for transporting the beneficiated mineral, Rule 144 of the said Rules of 1969 will not apply as transporting or moving beneficiated mineral will not amount to transporting or moving a forest produce. 15. However, the claim made by the petitioner that what is sought to be transported is the beneficiated mineral cannot be accepted for its face value and therefore, wherever there is a doubt, the authorities under the said Act of 1963, are entitled to check whether what is transported is a forest produce or is a beneficiated mineral after completion of the process of beneficiation. 16. The blanket relief as prayed for in the petition cannot be granted inasmuch as whether iron ore which is a forest produce is actually beneficiated or not is a matter which is required to be considered in each case on factual basis. 17. 16. The blanket relief as prayed for in the petition cannot be granted inasmuch as whether iron ore which is a forest produce is actually beneficiated or not is a matter which is required to be considered in each case on factual basis. 17. We, therefore, dispose of the petition by passing the following order: (i) When mineral iron ore which is a forest produce is transported to a factory or manufacturing unit after following the procedure under Rules 144 and 145 of the said Rules of 1969 is converted into a beneficiated mineral (within the meaning of Rule 2(f) of the said Rules of 2011) after undergoing the process of beneficiation, Rule 144 of the said Rules of 1969 will not apply for transporting or moving the beneficiated mineral; (ii) We also make it clear that if for the transportation of beneficiated mineral, Mineral Dispatch Permit under the provisions of the said Rules of 2011 is required to be obtained, the same shall be obtained; (iii) The petition is disposed of on the above terms with a clarification that each case will have to examined on factual basis on the basis of the law declared by this Court.