Holding

Ordinary earth is a mineral within the meaning of "any other mineral" under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and its declaration as a minor mineral and the royalty fixed by the Uttar Pradesh Rules are valid.

Summary

The petitioners, Som Datt Builders Ltd. and others, challenged the Central Government's notification declaring "ordinary earth" used for filling and levelling as a "minor mineral" under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the subsequent fixing of royalty at Rs.4 per cubic metre by the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The Court examined whether "ordinary earth" falls within the definition of a mineral and whether the government could base the declaration on its intended use. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that the term "mineral" is context‑dependent and that "ordinary earth" is encompassed by the residuary entry "any other mineral" in Section 3(e). Consequently, the Central Government's power to declare it a minor mineral and to fix royalty was deemed valid and not ultra vires. The Court also observed that the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedial mechanisms under the Rules, and therefore the High Court's order could not be disturbed under Article 136. All appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The classification of "ordinary earth" as a mineral within the meaning of Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957.
The legality of the Central Government's declaration of "ordinary earth" as a minor mineral based on its use.
The validity of the royalty rate fixed by the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and its applicability to parties not holding mining leases or permits.
The propriety of interfering with the High Court's decision under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 15, s. 30(e), s. 3(e)
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963

Subjects

ordinary earthminor mineralmineral definitionMines and Minerals ActroyaltyUttar Pradesh Minor Minerals RulesArticle 136use‑based classificationconstitutional validity

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 772

A MIS. SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD.
v.
~
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2088 of 2007 etc.)
NOVEMBER 9, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957- s. 30(e)- 'Ordinary earth' - Whether a mineral- Held:
In view of s. 3(e) 'Ordinary earth' is a mineral - Hence rightly ~ ~

c declared to be 'minor mineral' by Government Notification.
Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,, 1963
- First Schedule - Amendment of - Fixing royalty for use of
'ordinary earth'·@ Rs. 41- per cubic meter - Challenge to -
Propriety of - Held: The party challenging it, having failed to
D resort to remedies provided under the Rules, cannot challenge
it later- Hence, High Court order upholding the validity of fixing
of royalty, cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, •
1950 - Article 136.
Words and Phrases - 'Mineral'- Meaning of, in the context
E
of s. 3(e) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957.
The question for consideration before this Court was
whether 'ordinary earth',,used for filling or leveHing
purposes in the construction of embankments, roads,
F railways, buildings, have validly been declared to be a
· 'minor mineral' by the Central Government vide
Notification dated 3.2.2000. issued u/s. 3(e) of Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and
whether the amendment brought in First Schedule in Uttar
G Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, fixing ''
)'
royalty for the use of 'ordinary earth' at the rate of Rs. 4/-
per cubic meter. ... I
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

H 772

..
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 773.
ORS.
HELD: 1.1. The word 'mineral'. has not been A
circumscribed by a precise scientific definition; it is not a
definite term. The proposition that the 'minerals' must
always be subsoil and that there can be no minerals on
the surface of the earth has also not found favour in judicial
interpretation of the word 'mineral'. The term imineral' has 8
been judicially construed many a time in widest possible
amplitude and sometimes accorded a narrow meaning. Its
precise meaning in a given case has to be fixed with
reference to the particular con'text. The word 'mineral' is
not a word of art and that it is capable of multiplicity of
meanings depending upon the context and that the word C
'mineral' has no fixed but a contextual connotation. Any
natural material that is defined as a 'mineral' by statute or
case law may also be covered by the expression 'mineral'.
[Para 20] [785-E-G; 786-A]
1.2. In the context of Section 3{e) of Mines and Minerals D
{Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, 'ordinary earth'
is comprehended within the meaning of the word 'any
other mineral'. If the expression 'minor mineral' as defined
in Section 3{e) of the Act includes 'ordinary clay' and
'ordinary sand', there is no reason why 'ordinary earth' E
should not be comprehended within the meaning of the
word 'any other mineral'. [Para 22] (786-B-D]
Mis. Banarsi Dass Chadha and Brothers vs. Lt. Governor,
Delhi Administration and Ors. (1978) 4 sec 11, relied on.
V.P. Pithupitchai and Anr. vs. Special Secretary to the F
Govt. of T.N. (2003) 9 SCC 534, distinguished.
Bhagwan Das vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 784;
State of M.P. vs. Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd. 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 642; State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Jagadamba
Prasad Singh and Ors. AIR 1969 Cal 281, referred to. G
Lord Provost and Magistrates of Glasgow vs. Farie (1888)
• LR 13 Appeal Cases 657; North British Railway Company vs.
Budhill Coal and Sandstone Company and Ors. (1910) AC
116; Scott vs. Midland Railway Company (1901) 1 Q.B. 317;
H
)

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADOL) S.C.R.

A Great Western RailwayCompany vs. Carpal/a United China
Clay Company Limited and Anr. (1910) A.C. 83; Northern
Pacific Railway Company vs. John A. Soderberg 147 l Ed 575,
referred to.
Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), referred to.
B 1.3. Once the 'ordinary earth' is found to be
comprehended within the meaning of the word 'any other
mineral' for the purposes of Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957,
there is no impediment for the Central Government to
include or exclude the same based on a particular use or
c purpose. User can be a valid reason for exclusion as well
as inclusion in declaring mineral, 'minor mineral' in
exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central
Government u/s. 3(e) of the Act and exercise of any such
power based on use or purpose cannot be said to be
arbitrary. The declaration of the 'ordinary earth' for the uses
D and purposes mentioned in the notification dated
February 3, 2000 is not ultra vires the power conferred
upon the Central Government. [Para 23) [786-E-H; 787-A]
2. Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
1963 provide complete machinery for assessment and
E recovery of royalty and consequences of non-payment of
royalty. These Rules also provide remedy to an aggrieved
person against order passed under the Rules by the
District Officer demanding payment of royalty. The
appellants, having failed to pursue remedy provided under
F the Rules, 1963 as regards recovery of royalty from them~
the view taken by the High Court that the State in. imposing
the royalty has not placed undue restrictions on the right
to carry on trade or business or that the same was without
the authority of law, does not call for any interference in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
G Constitution. [Para 28] [788-0-F]
Case Law Reference :
(1888) LR 13 referred to. Para 9
Appeal Cases 657
H
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 775
ORS.
(1910) AC 116 referred to. Para 10 A
(1901) 1 Q.B. 317 referred to. Para 11
(1910) A.C. 83 referred to. Para 12
(1976) 3 sec 784 referred to. Para 13
(1978) 4 sec 11 relied on. Para 14
Para 14 B
47 L Ed 575 referred to.
(2003) s sec 534 distinguished. Para 15
1995 Supp (1) SCC 642 referred to. Para 15
AIR 1969 Cal. 281 referred to. Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. c
2088 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.02.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
8760 of 2003.
WITH
D
C.A. Nos. 7475-7476, 7477, 7478 of 2009, 4314of2008 & 2087
of 2007.
Su nil Gupta, S.P. Singh, K. Radhakrishnan, Shobha
Dikshit, S.R. Singh, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG., Rajiv K. Garg,
Ashish Garg, A.D.N. Rao, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu; C.D.
Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Vivek Singh, E
Udita Singh, Ron Bastian, Chandra Prakash, Rajesh Srivastava,
Rekha Pandey & Sadhna Sandhu, Rashmi Malhotra, Wasim
Qadri, A.K. Sharma, D.S. Mahara, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh,
t Manoj Kr. Sharma, V.K. Verma, S.A. Abdi, Anuvrat Sharma,
Vandana Mishra & Alka Sinha Praveen Jain & Mukesh Kumar F
(for M.V. Kini & Associates) for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(Civil) Nos. 12127
of 2006, 12722 of 2006 and 6808-6809 of 2008.
2. This group of seven appeals arises from the common G
.,. judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
on February 28, 2006 and, therefore, all these appeals were
heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
3. The core issue that calls for determination in these
appeals is whether 'ordinary earth' used for filling or levelling H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A purposes in the construction of embankments, roads, railways, /

buildings has validly been declared to be a 'minor mineral' by ,/
the Central Government vide notification dated February 3, 2000
issued under Section 3(e) of Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'Act, 1957'). 11

8 4. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of these
appeals. The brief narration of facts in Civil Appeal No. 2088 of
2007 will suffice. The appellant therein is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in
the construction of business towers, hotels and various other ...
infrastructural development projects. According to them, an
c agreement was entered into between the Company and National
Highway Authority of India for widening of Grand Trunk Road from
3.93 kilometer stone to 470 kilometer stone at Sikandara,
Kanpur. For the purpose of filling and levelling of road, the
company entered into agreement with the local land holders/
D agriculturists for purchase of 'ordinary earth' and paid them
accordingly. Various demand notices are said to have been !
issued to the appellant towards royalty for lifting 'ordinary earth' ·~

necessitating them to approach the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad challenging the constitutional validity of notification
dated February 3, 2000 issued by the Central Government. They
R also challenged the amendment brought in the First Schedule
by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'Rules, 1963') fixing roya!ty
for the use of 'ordinary earth' at the rate Rs. 4/- per cubic meter.
5. Section 3 of the Act, 1957 defines 'minerals' and 'minor t
F minerals' as follows :
"Section 3 - Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-,--
(a) "minerals" includes all minerals except mineral ('\;:s;
(b) .....
G (c) .....
(d) .....
(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
H
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 777
ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, A
declare to be a minor mineral; ......... "
6. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(e),
Central Government issued the following notification on February
3, 2000:
"G.S.R.95(E).-ln exercise of the powers conferred B
by clause (e) of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), the
Central Government hereby declares the 'ordinary earth'
... used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of
embankments, roads, railways, buildings to be a minor
minera.1 in addition to the minerals already declared as
c
minor minerals hereinbefore under the said clause."
7. That a substance has to be mineral before it can be
notified as a 'minor mineral' pursuant to the power under Section
-I
3(e) of the Act of 1957 is not in dispute. Whether 'ordinary earth'
is a mineral is the primary question for consideration. The D
question is a little intricate one because the definition of
-~
'minerals' in the Act, 1957 is not of much help in finding answer
to the question.
8. The word 'mineral' has come up for judicial interpretation
from time to time. E
1
9. In Lord Provost And Magistrates of Glasgow vs. Farie ,
the issue before the House of Lords was whether clay is included
in 'other minerals' under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. Lord
Halsbury, LC said :
"There is no doubt that more accurate scientific investigation F
of the substances of the earth and different modes of
extracting them have contributed to render the sense of the
word "minerals" less certain than when it originally was used
in relation to mining operations. I should think that there could
be no doubt that the word "minerals" in old times meant the
substances got by miring, and I think mining in old time~ G
meant subterranean 1 excavation. I doubt whether in the
" present state of the authorities it is accurate to say that in
every deed or in every statute the word "minerals" has
acquired a meaning of its own independently of any question
1. (1888) LR 13 Appeal cases 657. H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) s.c.R:

A as to the manner in which the minerals themselves are
gotten."
Lord Watson in his opinion stated that "mines" and
"minerals" are not definite terms: they are susceptible of limitation
or expansion, according to the intention with which they are used.
B 10. The House of Lords in North British Railway Company
vs. Budhill Coal And Sandstone Company And Others2 was
concerned with the question whether sandstone or freestone is
included in the minerals excepted by Section 70 of the Railways
Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act of 1845. Lord Loreburn
C L. C. considered number of decisions including the aforequoted
decision and summarised the tests applied in various cases in
the following words :
" ..... It is not possible to extract any uniform standard. The
.same is true of the opinions expressed by different learned
judges. A variety of tests have been propounded, which are
D :discussed by Lord Gorell. I agree with him both in his
enumeration and in his criticism. Is the substance in common
parlance a mineral? Is it so considered by geologists? Is it
a substance of any peculiar value? No one principle has
been accepted, and every principle appears to have its
E friends."
11. In Scott vs. Midland Railway Company3 , Darling J.
observed that the word "minerals" is one which at different times
has been used with very different meanings. In some statutes it
has a very.restricted meaning, in others a very wide one. In order
F to determine in each case whether the word is used in a wide or
narrow sense we must, as Lord Herschell said in Glasgow vs. -
Farie 1 , look at the object which the Legislature had in view.
12. In Great Western Railway Company vs. Carpal/a
United China Clay Con:pany, Limited and Another, House of
Lords had an issue before it whether China clay was a mineral
G within the provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act,
1845. Lord Macnaghten said :

2. (1910) AC 116.
3. (1901) 1Q.B.317.
H 4. (1910) A.C. 83.
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 779
ORS. [RM. LODHA, J.]

)> " ... ~ .. The word 'minerals' undoubtedly may have a wider A
/
meaning tha-n the word 'mines'. In its widest signification it
probably means every inorganic substance forming part of
the crust of the earth other than the layer of soil which
sustains vegetable life."
13. In Bhagwan Das vs. State of U.P. and Others5 , it was B
argued before this court that the sand and gravel are deposited
on the surface of the land and not under the surface of the soil
.... . and, therefore, they cannot be called minerals. Y.V .
Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) negating the said contention
said:
" ......... It is in the first place wrong to assume that mines
c
and minerals must always be subsoil and that there can be
no minerals on the surface of the earth. Such an assumption
is contrary to informed experience. In any case, the definition
of mining operations and minor minerals in Section 3(d) and
(e) of the Act of 1957 and Rule 2(5) and (7) of the Rules of D
. 1963 shows that minerals need not be subterranean and
that mining operations cover every operation undertaken for
the purpose of "winning" any minor mineral. "Winning" does
not imply a hazardous or perilous activity. The word simply
means "extracting a mineral" and is used generally to
E
indicate any activity by which a mineral is secured.
"Extracting", in turn, means, drawing out or obtaining. A tooth
is 'extracted' as much as is fruit juice and as much as a
~ mineral. Only, that the effort varies from tooth to tooth, from
fruit to fruit and from mineral to mineral."
14. In the case of Mis. Banarsi Dass Chadha and Brothers F
vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration and Others6 , a three-

.. Judge Bench of this Court was seized with the question whether
'brick earth' is a 'minor mineral' within the meaning of that
expression as defined in Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench observed : G
• " ........ The expression "minor mineral" as defined in Section
3(e) includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary sand'. If the
expression "minor mineral" as defined in Section 3(e) of the
5. (1976) 3 sec 784.
6. (1978) 4 sec 11. H
780 SUPREME ~OURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Act includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary sand', there is no
reason why earth used for the purpose of making bricks .
should not be comprehended within the meaning of the word
'
"any other mineral" which may be declared as a "minor
mineral" by the Government. The word "mineral" is not a term
of art. It is a word of common parlance, capable of a
B
multiplicity of meanings depending upon the context. For
example the word is occasionally used in a very wide sense
to denote any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable.
Sometimes it is used in a narrow sense to mean no more ~
than precious metals like gold and silver. Again, theword
c "minerals" is often used to indicate substances obtained
from underneath the surface of the earth by digging or
quarrying. But this is not always so as pointed out by
Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) in Bhagwan Dass vs.
State of UP."
D This court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of
United States in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. John A.
Soderberg7 and quoted the observations made therein as .
follows:
"The word "mineral" is used in so many senses, dependent
upon the context, that the ordinary definitions of the
E
dictionary throw but little light upon its signification in a given
case. Thus, the scientific division of all matter into the animal,
vegetable, or mineral kingdom would be absurd as applied
to a grant of lands, since all lands belong to the mineral
kingdom, and therefore could not be excepted from the grant
F without being destructive of it. Upon the other hand, a
definition which would confine it to the precious metals-
gold and silver--1,,,.ould so limit its application as to destroy
at once half the value of the exception. Equally subversive
of the grant would be the definition of minerals found in the f
'\.
G Century Dictionary; as "any constituent of the earth's crust;"
and that of Bainbridge on Mines: "All the substances that
now form, or which once formed, a part of the solid body of
the earth." Nor do we approximate much more closely to the
meaning of the word by treating minerals as substances
-
H 7. 47 L Ed 575.
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 781
ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

.. ~
which are "mined," as distinguished from those which are A
"quarried," since many valuable deposits of gold, copper,
iron, and coal lie upon or near the surface of the earth, and
some of the most valuable building stone, such-,for instance,
as the Caen stone in France, is excavated from mines
running far beneath the surface. This distinction between B
underground mines and open workings was expressly
repudiated in Midland R. Co. v. Haunchwood Brick & Tile
Co. L. R. 20 Ch. Div. 552, and in Hext v. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch.
.J 699."
This court further held in paragraph 6 of the report thus:
"The Supreme Court of United States also referred to
c
several English cases where stone for road making or
paving was held to be 'mineral', as also granite, sandstone,

--
flint stone, gravel, marble, fire clay, brick-clay, and the like.
It is clear that the word 'mineral' has no fixed but a contextual
connotation." D
It was then concluded that word 'mineral' has no definite
...
meaning but has a variety of meanings, depending on the context
of its use. This is what this Court observed :
~ " ........ In the context of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation
& Development) Act, we have no doubt that the word E
'mineral' is of sufficient amplitude to include 'brick-earth'.
As already observed by us, if the expression 'minor mineral'
as defined in the Act includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary
.,. sand', there is no earthly reason why 'brick-earth' should not
be held to be 'any other mineral' which may be declared as
F
a 'minor mineral'. We do not think it necessary to pursue
the matter further except to say that this was the view taken
in Laddu Mal vs. State of Bihar, Amar Singh Modi/al vs.
State of Haryana and Sharma & Co. vs. State of UP. We
,. /

do not agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court in
State of West Bengal vs. Jagdamba Prasad, that because G
, nobody speaks of 'ordinary earth' as a mineral it is not a
~
~ minor mineral as defined in the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation & Development) Act."
~
15. The decision of this Court in Banarsi Dass Chadha
squarely answers the question posed before us. However, the H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A learned Senior Counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon a
• .....
subsequent decision of this court in V.P. Pithupitchai and
Another vs. Special Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. 8 and
submitted that 'ordinary earth' is not comprehended by the
expression 'mineral'. That was a case where the question was
whether seashells could be termed to be 'mineral' within the
B
meaning of the Act, 1957. This court referred to earlier decisions
viz; State of M.P. vs. Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd. 9 , Bhagwan
Dass 5 and Banarsi Dass Chadha 6 and also noticed the
meaning of the word 'mineral' noted in (i) Webster's 3rd New
International Dictionary, 1968; (ii) Funk and Wagnalls' Standard
c Dictionary, International Edn., Vol. II; (iii) Oxford Illustrated
Dictionary and (iv) Groliar International Dictionary, Vol.II. We
deem it appropriate to reproduce paragraph 13 wherein
meaning of the word 'mineral' noted in aforesaid dictionaries was
noticed:
D "13. This is in keeping with the meaning given in the several
dictionaries referred to by the High Court to determine the ...
meaning of the word "mineral" which are reproduced:
(i) Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary, 1968
defines "mineral" as:
E "a solid homogeneous crystalline chemical element
or compound (as diamond or quartz) that results from the
inorganic processes of nature and that has a characteristic
crystal structure and chemical composition or range of
I
compositions ... something that is neither animal nor
vegetable (as in the old general classification of things into
F three kingdoms: animal, vegetable.and mineral)".
(ii) Funk and Wagnalls' Standard Dictionary, International
Edn., Vol. II: .
)
"a naturally occurring, homogeneous substance or '\
7
.material formed by inorganic processes and having a
characteristic set of physical properties, a definite range of
... .
chemical composition, and a molecular structure usually ~
'
expressed in crystalline forms .... Any inorganic substance,
)--

s. (2003) g sec 534
9. 1995 Supp (1) sec 642
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 783
ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
as ore, a rock, or a fossil". A
(iii) Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:
"Substance (e.g. metal, coal, salt) got by mining ....
... (chem.) element or compound occurring naturally as a
product of inorganic processes ....
... substance which is neither animal nor vegetable." B
(iv) Gro/iar International Dictionary, Vol. II:
"any naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic
substance having a definite chemical composition and
characteristic crystalline structure, colour and hardness ....
... Any of various natural substances. c
(a) An element, such as gold or silver.
(b) A mixture of inorganic compounds, such as
hornblende or granite.
(c) An organic derivative, such as coal or petroleum D
... any substance that is neither animal nor vegetable;
,,;
inorganic matter"."
16. In V.P. Pithupitchai, this Court did not consider whether
seashells were covered within the residuary entry in the Second
Schedule but considered the correctness of the High Court's
E
view whether seashell is limeshell within the meaning of Item 28
of the Second Schedule. In paragraph 15 of the report, the
following observations were made:
"15. A distinction must be drawn between (i) a substance
.. identified as a mineral, (ii) a substance containing minerals
F
,. (for example bones which contain large percentages of
calcium and phosphate and to some extent carbonate), and
(iii) a substance which may be the original source of a
mineral (for example plants which after being subjected to
millions of years of geological processes ultimately become
coal). In the first case, the classification of a substance as G
a mineral is simple. But the bones in the second class and
~
trees in the third class can hardly be termed to be minerals
although they may contain or ultimately result in a mineral.
Seashells may, like bones, contain calcium carbonate, and
may also like trees, through a geological process result in
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADQL.) S.C.R. /

A a mineral such as limestone. But it cannot be said that a
seashell in its original form is a mineral." -4. -'
17. In our view, the decision of this court in V.P. Pithupitchai
is a substance specific and not of much help in deciding the case
in hand for more than one reason. In the first place, in that case
B the court was not concerned with the power conferred upon the
Central Government to declare a substance 'minor mineral' in
exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 3(e) of the
Act, 1957. Secondly, and more importantly, in that case the court
was called upon to determine the correctness of the High Court's
opinion whether a seashell is limeshell within the meaning of item
c 28 of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1957. It is true that in
paragraph 15 of the report, this court drew distinction between
(i) a substance identified as a mineral, (ii) a substance containing
minerals and (iii) a substance which may be the original source
of mineral ~nd then it was held that seashell in its original form
D is not a mineral but, we are afraid, the test applied by this court
in V.P. Pithupitchai is not or universal application.
.....
18. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted
that as there is no definition of 'mineral' in the Act, 1957 or the
Rules 1963, dictionary meaning of the word 'mineral' is most
pertinent and apt to the context. In this regard, he referred to the
E
Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) wherein the meaning of
the 'mineral' is noted to be an inorganic substance which is
homogeneous in structure and similar in the composition when
found on or under the soil bed. The learned Senior Counsel would
submit that 'ordinary earth' (sadharan mitti) is not covered by the -'
F definition of 'mineral' as noted above. He also submitted that one
cannot equate 'ordinary earth' (sadharan mitti) with 'ordinary clay'
and 'ordinary earth' is not like 'ordinary clay'. The Learned Senior
Counsel argued that Banarsi Dass Chadha was a case relating
to 'brick earth' and there was no cause of action, no plea and no l•

G argument raised as regards 'ordinary earth' and the remark in
passing about 'ordinary earth' or the judgment of Calcutta High
Court in the State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Jagadamba ...
Prasad Singh and Others 10 at the fag end is obiter and not part
of law laid down by this Court. According to him, Banarsi Dass

H 10. AIR 1969 Cal 281
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 785
ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Chadha is not an authority or precedent for the purpose of the A
• present case and it is the ratio in V.P. Pithupitchai that governs
and binds the case.
19. It is appropriate to reproduce the meaning of the word
'mineral' noted in Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) since
it is a later edition. It reads thus:
B
"mineral, n. 1. Any natural inorganic matter that has a
definite chemical composition and specific physical
properties that give it value <most minerals are crystalline
solids>. [Cases: Mines and Minerals 48. C.J.S. Mines and
Minerals§§ 4, 140-142.] 2. A subsurface material that is
explored for, mined, and exploited for its useful properties c
and commercial value. 3. Any natural material that is defined
as a mineral by statute or case law."
20. A survey of various decisions referred to hereinabove
w_ould show that there is wide divergence of meanings
attributable to the word 'mineral' and that in judicial interpretation D
of the expression 'mineral' variety of tests and principles have
been propounded; their application, however, has not been
uniform. Insofar as dictionary meaning of the word 'mineral' is
concerned, it has never been held to be determinative and
conclusive. The word 'mineral' has not been circumscribed by a
E
precise scientific definition; it is not a definite term. The
proposition that the minerals must always be subsoil and that
there can be no minerals on the surface of the earth has also not
found favour in judicial interpretation of the word 'mineral'. The
• term 'mineral' has been judicially construed many a time in widest
possible amplitude and sometimes accorded a narrow meaning. F
Pithily said, its precise meaning in a given case has to be fixed
with reference to the particular context. We find ourselves in
agreement with the view expressed in Banarsi Dass Chadha that
word 'mineral' is not a word of art and that it is capable of
multiplicity of meanings depending upon the context and that the G
word 'mineral' has no fixed but a contextual connotation. The test
.. applied by this Court in V.P. Pithupitchai in holding seashell not
a mineral because in its original form it is not mineral, in our view,
is not determinative and conclusive in all situations when a
question arises as to whether a particular substance is a mineral
or not. It is worth noticing that any natural material that is defined H
786 SUPREME, COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A as a 'mineral' by statute or case law may also be covered by the
expression 'mineral' as noted in Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth
Edition).
21. Common parlance test that because nobody speaks of
'ordinary earth' as a 'mineral' has not been accepted by this
B Court in Banarsi Dass Chad ha. As a matter of fact, this Court in
this regard specifically disagreed with the view of Calcutta High
Court in Jagadamba Prasad Singh 10 •
22. In the context of Section 3(e), what we have discussed
above, we hold, as it must be, that 'ordinary earth' is
C comprehended within the meaning of the word 'any other mineral'.
We adopt the reasoning given by three-Judge Bench in Banarsi
Dass Chadha that if the expression 'minor mineral' as defined
in Section 3(e) of the Act includes 'ordinary clay' and 'ordinary
sand', there is no reason why 'ordinary earth' should not be
comprehended within the meaning of the word ·~ny other mineral'. -
D 23. Having held that 'ordinary earth' is comprehended within
the meaning of the word 'any other mineral' in Section 3(e) of
the Act, 1957, the question that now arises is whether the exercise
of power by the Central Government under Section 3(e) of the
Act, 1957 in declaring the use of 'ordinary earth' for filling or
E levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads,
railways, building as 'minor mineral' is justified. It was contended
on-behalf of the appellants that the Central Government cannot
include any matter based on mere use nor can it make purpose-
based distinction. Once the 'ordinary earth' is found to be
comprehended within the meaning of the word 'any other mineral'
F for the purposes of Section 3(e) of the Act, 1957, in our view,
there is no impediment for the Central Government to include or
exclude the same base~ on a particular use or purpose. User
can be a valid reason ·for exclusion as well as inclusion in
declaring mineral, 'minor mineral' in exercise of the powers
G conferred upon the Central Government under Section 3(e) of
the Act and exercise of any such power based on use or purpose
cannot be said to be arbitrary. We, accordingly, find no merit in
the contention of the Learned -Senior Counsel for the appellants
that the declaration of the 'ordinary earth' for the uses and
H purposes mentioned in the notification dated February 3, 2000
SOM DATT BUILDERS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & 787
ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
is ultra vires the power conferred upon the Central Government. A
24. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also
,;. argued that demand of royalty can be raised only against a lessee
or mining permit-holder and the demand raised against the
appellants, who are neither lessees nor mining permit holders,
is violative of the Rules, 1963. 8
25. The High Court while dealing with the aforesaid
contention held :
"Now coming to the question as to whether the amount of
royalty can be recovered from the petitioners who are the
.J contractors and suppliers of ordinary earth and other minor c
minerals, we are of the considered opinion that the royalty
is payable on excavation of any minor minerals. The liability
is primarily of the person holding the mining lease or a
mining permit but if a person does not hold any mining lease
or a mining permit, the liability does not cease. Any person
dealing in a minor mineral is required to maintain and keep D'
documents to show that the royalty has been paid and in
order to ensure that due royalty on minor minerals has been
.... paid within the State of U.P.,the State Government by the
tree Government Orders have provided for producing
.copies of declaration in form MM 11 and treasury challan E
evidencing deposit of royalty. It cannot be said that any undue
restrictions have been placed upon the right to carry on
trade or business or it is without the authority of law."
.26. Rules, 1963 have been framed by the Government of .
'

.. Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its power conferred under Section
15 of the Act, 1957. These Rules have adopted the definition of
F
"' 'minor mineral' as provided in Clause (e) of Section 3 of the Act,
1957. The Rules make provision for grant of mining lease;
payment of royalty/dead rent; conditions of mining lease and
permit; contraventions, offences and penalties for unauthorized
mining including consequences of non-payment of royalty, rent G
or other dues; powers of the District Officers and the Officers of
the Directorate of Geology and Mining for the purpose of
.. assessment of royalty; collection of royalty or dead rent through
contractor; appeal against order passed under these Rules by
the District Officer and remedy by way of revision to the State H
•'1

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Government.
27. Vide notification dated March 20, 2001, First Schedule ·•.
appended to the Rules, 1963 was amended and rate of royalty
for 'ordinary clay' 'ordinary earth' was fixed at Rs. 4/- per cubic
meter.
B 28. Admittedly demand notices came to be issued to the
appellants by the Office of the District Officer bringing to their
notice that they have extracted 'ordinary earth' covered by the
definition of 'minor mineral' without any permission or permit and
that they have also not paid royalty. The appellants were, thus, )..
called upon to make payment of royalty. However, neither the
c material placed before us nor from the judgment of the High t
Court, it transpires that the appellants responded to the said
notices and raised the objection that demand of royalty cannot ;
7
be raised against them as they were not lessees or mining
permit holders. In any case, if they raised such objection, they
D did not await decision of the authorities in this regard. Rules,
1963 provide complete machinery for assessment and recovery
of royalty and consequences of non-payment of royalty. These
Rules also provide remedy to an aggrieved person against order
passed under the Rules by the District Officer demanding
payment of royalty. The appellants, having failed to pursue
E
remedy provided under the Rules, 1963 as regards recovery of
royalty from them, we are afraid, the view taken byt_!le High Court
does not call for any interference in our jurisdiction under Artic::;le
136 of the Constitution.
29. Consequently, all these appeals fail and are dismissed ~

F with no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
'
-~