Consider the following statements: Statement I: In India, State Governments have no power for making rules for grant of concessions in respect of extraction of minor minerals even though such minerals are located in their territories. Statement II: In India, the Central Government has the power to notify minor minerals under the relevant law. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Answer: (d) Statement I is not correct but Statement II is correct

Under Section 15 of the MMDR Act, States make the rules for minor mineral concessions (I false); under Section 3(e) the Centre notifies which minerals are minor (II true).

The idea

The power to define a legal category can belong to a different authority from the power to regulate concessions within it. Minor mineral is a statutory category, not a judgement that a material is unimportant. Central notification and State rule-making can therefore coexist.

Statutory definition identifies minor minerals → Centre may notify additional minerals → State frames concession rules under section 15 → Applications follow the applicable State rules → Extraction remains subject to other required clearances

Why the others are wrong

(a) Accepts I.

(b) Accepts I.

(c) Accepts I and rejects II.

The trap

The Centre decides WHICH minerals are minor; the States regulate them.

Elimination technique

Separate notification power from concession-rule power. Section 15 contradicts statement I, while section 3(e) supports II, leaving (d).

Also know

Building stone, ordinary sand and ordinary clay are familiar minor-mineral examples under the statutory framework. Section 15 concerns State rules for minor-mineral concessions; section 3(e) supplies the definition and notification route. Critical-mineral auctions belong to a different part of the mining framework.