Judgment :- In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners claiming as vehicle owners seek directions to the respondents to release their respective vehicles viz., lorries, tractor with trailor, tempo van, escort JCB-3D excavator loader etc. which are seized by the respective authorities (concerned respondents in the above writ petitions), for alleged contraventions of the provisions of sub-section (1) of the Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by exercising the power under Section 21(4) of the said Act. 2. When the writ petitions came up for admission, notice of motion was ordered and therefore after service of notice, the learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. Mr. M. Ravindran, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenges the seizure of the vehicles on the following grounds : (i) Procedure contemplating under Section 102 of the Cr. P. C. relating to the seizure of property and preparation of mahazar report have not been followed at the time of seizure. (ii) The petitioners are not put on notice as to the grounds of seizure. (iii) As per Section 21(4) of the said Act, only an officer or authority who is specially empowered could seize the vehicles or otherwise the seizure is illegal and contrary to Section 21(4) of the said Act. (iv) The seizure of the vehicle under Section 21(4) of the said Act will not be applicable to the vehicles that are seized during the course of transportation, because, as per Section 21(4) of the said Act, an officer or authority could seize any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things only if they are brought on the land where the minerals are raised without any lawful authority. (v) The seizure of vehicle under Section 21(4) of the said Act cannot be made in the case of transport of the minerals raised from patta lands. (vi) If Section 21(4) and (5) of the said Act are read together, the respondents could only recover the minerals from the persons who raise the same without any lawful authority or recover the price thereof, where such minerals have already been disposed of; but the respondents cannot resort to seize the vehicle etc. as proposed in the instant cases. (vi) If Section 21(4) and (5) of the said Act are read together, the respondents could only recover the minerals from the persons who raise the same without any lawful authority or recover the price thereof, where such minerals have already been disposed of; but the respondents cannot resort to seize the vehicle etc. as proposed in the instant cases. (vii) Since Section 23-A of the said Act enables for compounding the offence, the powers to seize the vehicle under Sec. 21(4) itself is subject to the action under Section 23-A for compounding the offences; and since the offence under which the impugned vehicles are seized is compoundable, the seizure of the vehicle is unwarranted and therefore it becomes, illegal automotically and hence the vehicle shall be released. (viii) The transport operator cannot be made liable for the contraventions alleged to have been committed by the third parties who have illegally raised the minerals. (ix) In any event, the power of seizure of vehicles conferred on the officers or authorities without any provision either for the release of the vehicle even in just and reasonable cases or for confiscation in cases where minerals are raised without any lawful authority, is arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. Mr. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 11594, 12042, 12204, 12203 of 1997, while adopting the arguments of Mr. M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, contends that since the Section 21(5) of the Act and Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules themselves provide for recovery of the minerals raised without any lawful authority and in contravention of the provisions of the Act, or for the recovery or price where such minerals are disposed of, the power to seize the vehicle under Sec. 21(4) should not have been invoked by the authorities. 5. Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 11412 of 1997, while adopting the arguments of Mr. M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, contends that in spite of production of relevant transport permit issued by the competent authorities, the authorities have seized the vehicle and therefore the seizure is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice several orders of this Court in similar cases releasing the vehicles on conditions stipulated therein. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice several orders of this Court in similar cases releasing the vehicles on conditions stipulated therein. 7. The learned Advocate General, Per Contro, resisted the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners as follows :- Section 21(4) of the said Act empowers the authority to seize the vehicle, whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from the land; Section 21(4) is not only applicable for the vehicles but also for any tool, equipment or any other things; as per G. O. Ms. No. 167, Industries (M.M.C. 1) dated 16th June, 1994 only the officers or authority who are specially powered for the purpose to seize the vehicle under Section 21(4), have seized the vehicle in all these writ petitions; the procedure contemplated under Section 102, Cr. P. C. including the preparation of the mahazar report had been complied with but, however, the petitioners or the drivers of the vehicle refused to receive the same and therefore the same cannot be put against the respondents; none of the petitioners is holding valid transport permit or could prove with sufficient materials that he has transported for the bona fide purpose covered under Rule 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules; nor has transported the minerals from the valid licence or lease holders; Sec. 21(4) and 21(5) are independent in their operation. 8. 8. The learned Advocate General further contends that neither the power conferred under Section 21(5) of the Act nor the powers conferred under Rule 36-A(1), (2) and (3) of the Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules can take away the power of an officer or authority specially empowered to seize the vehicles under Section 21(4) of the Act; if the petitioners had transported the minerals, viz., the sand, with lawful authority from the valid licence/lease holders, they would have produced the valid transport permit as prescribed in the Appendix 12 of the Rules and the despatch slip as prescribed in Appendix 13 of the Rules which would contain the relevant details such as the name and address of the quarrying lease/permit holder, location of the quarry, name of the mineral permitted to be transported, details of seniorage fee, period of transport permit, destination, mode of transportation, time at which the vehicle left the quarry with the minerals, approximate time at which the vehicle may reach the place of destination, signature of the permit holder or his power agent, signature of the driver of the vehicle (which should be signed before the vehicle leave the quarry) etc., if the minerals were transported for domestic or agricultural purpose which are allowed under Rule 6(1) of the Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules, the petitioners would have produced a letter of authorisation from the person for whose use the minerals are intended; and that the vehicle drivers or the owners shall be responsible for establishing the bona fide transport of the minerals for such domestic and agricultural purpose when called upon to do so. But in all these cases, none of the above requirements that are contemplated under proviso to Rule 36(5)(b) have been complied with. 9-10. The learned Advocate General vehemently objects the contention of the petitioners that only tools, equipment and vehicle or other things which are brought on the land where minerals are raised without lawful authority alone could be seized and further contends that the vehicles that are transporting the minerals on the road also could be seized after identifying such illegal mining operation in the light of the relevant facts required in Appendices 12 and 13. 11. 11. The learned Advocate General also objects the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of any provision for release of the vehicles was seized even in the just and reasonable cases and in the absence of any provision by further cause of action by the authorities where minerals are raised without lawful authority, the seizure of the vehicles are bad in law. The learned Advocate General contends that the object of seizing the vehicle is not only to take action against the illegal mining operations which is contrary to the interest of the mineral developments but also to prevent loss of revenue to the state. 12. The learned Advocate General further contends that had the petitioners produced a letter of authorisation regarding the bona fide domestic or agricultural purpose and established the same at the time of transportation, the vehicles would not have been seized at all, as provided under proviso to Rule 36(5)(b). Similarly, had the vehicle driver produced the valid transport permit or facsimiled despatch slips, again the vehicles would not have been seized. According to the learned Advocate General, the contention that in the absence of any provision under the rules for release of the vehicles, the seizure is bad in law cannot be accepted; similarly, the contention that in the absence of provision for further course of action after the seizure of vehicles where minerals are raised without any lawful authority, the seizure is bad also cannot be accepted, because, the seizure of the vehicle is inevitable for the purpose of taking cognizance of such offence of illegal mining operation. 13. The learned Advocate General further contends that as per Rule 36-A(1) amended by G.O. Ms. No. 49 Industries (MMC-1) dated 28-2-95, the District Collector or the District Forest Officer is empowered to collect a maximum of 15 times of normal seniorage fee, but subject to a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- from the persons who contravene Section 4(1) of the Act. He clarified that the said Rule is applicable only against the persons who raise the minerals in contravention of Section 4(1), but not against the owners of the tools equipments, vehicles and any other things that are used for such illegal mining operations. 10,000/- from the persons who contravene Section 4(1) of the Act. He clarified that the said Rule is applicable only against the persons who raise the minerals in contravention of Section 4(1), but not against the owners of the tools equipments, vehicles and any other things that are used for such illegal mining operations. Therefore, the learned Advocate General contends that the authorities should be given a free hand to decide the quantum of collecting the amount from the persons whose tools, equipments and vehicles are seized under Section 21(4) of the Act. 14. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 15. It is just and necessary to refer to the following provisions of the Act and Rules: Sections 4(1), 21(4), 21(5), 23-A, Rules 6(1), 36(5)(b) and 36-A(1). Section 4(1) "Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease: No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the Rules made thereunder." Section 21(4) : " Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and for that purpose, brings on the land, any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf." Section 21(5) : " Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority." Section 23-A: Compounding of offences : " 23-A(1). Any offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution be compounded by the person authorised under Section 22 to make a complaint to the Court with respect to that offence, on payment to that person, for credit to the Government, of such sum as that may specify: Provided that in the case of an offence punishable with fine only, no such sum shall exceed the maximum amount of fine which may be imposed for that offence." 23-A(2) :" Where an offence is compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded, and the offender if in custody, shall be released forthwith." Rule 6(1);" In river beds and unreserved lands at the disposal of the Government including poramboke other than village or town sites and bunds of drinking water ponds or tanks- the public may be allowed to quarry free for bona fide domestic or agricultural purposes without obtaining permits for quarrying provided that the dwelling place or the agricultural land of the person concerned and the quarrying place shall be in the same revenue village or in the adjoining revenue village." * Rule 36(5)(b) : The quarrying permit-holder or the lessee shall remove, or allow removal and transportation of any mineral from the area where quarrying is permitted only after obtaining bulk transport permit and facsimiled despatch slips in the forms prescribed in Appendices XII and XIII to these rules from the Officer authorised in this behalf by the District Collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be. The person who has been permitted to quarry in any area or his men in turn shall issue the facsimiled despatch slips to the vehicles used for removal or transportation of the mineral furnishing the particulars in the despatch slips specifically indicating the vehicle number the quantity of the mineral allowed to be transported by the vehicle by using that despatch slip and the time of issue of the despatch slip to the vehicle. All the vehicles used for transporting any mineral from any area shall be in possession of the individual despatch slips for the quantity of the minerals available in the vehicle at all the times of transportation of the mineral by the vehicles : Provided that the vehicles used for transporting any mineral free of charge for bona fide domestic or agricultural purpose shall have a letter or authorisation from the person for whose use the mineral is intended and the vehicle driver or owner shall be responsible for establishing the bona fide transport of the mineral for such purpose when called upon to do so. Rule 36-A(1) : "Whenever any person contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act in any land, enhanced seigniorage fee up to a maximum of fifteen times the normal rate subject to a minimum of ten thousand rupees shall be charged and recovered from that person by the District Collector or the District Forest Officer as the case may be or in the alternative, he shall be liable to be punished as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act." * 16. The learned Advocate General produced the files relating to the seizure of impugned vehicles. I am satisfied that the respondents have prepared mahazar report while seizing the vehicles, informing the grounds of seizure to the drivers of the vehicles. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the procedure contemplated under Section 102, Cr. P. C. relating to the seizure of the vehicles and the preparation of the mahazar report and that the petitioners are not put on notice as to the ground of seizure are not acceptable. Even in the case referred by Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, the transport permit No. 1062 dated 25-5-97, issued by Additional Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Vilovencode said to have been produced at the time of the seizure, (as claimed by Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar) itself does not contain all relevant material facts. Therefore, his contention that the authorities have seized the vehicles even in the case where valid transport permits were produced is not tenable. 17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the State Government, in G.O. Mis. No. 167 Industries (MMC-1) dated 16-6-94, notified the officers and authorities who are empowered to seize the vehicle. Therefore, his contention that the authorities have seized the vehicles even in the case where valid transport permits were produced is not tenable. 17. As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the State Government, in G.O. Mis. No. 167 Industries (MMC-1) dated 16-6-94, notified the officers and authorities who are empowered to seize the vehicle. The said G.O. dated 16-6-94 reads as follows : "Under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957) read with the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, Notification dated the 6th February, 1979, the Governor of Tamilnadu hereby specially empowers the Special Revenue Inspector (Mines) in the Department of Geology and Mining and Officers not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department to exercise the powers under the said sub-section within their respective jurisdiction." * 18. Since in all these writ petitions, only the authorities empowered so, have seized the vehicles. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have seized the vehicles without any authority of law is also not tenable. 19. A plain reading of Section 4(1) would make it clear that a person shall undertake any prospective or mining operation in any area, except and in accordance with the terms and conditions and of a prospective licence. 20. This apart, if Sections 4(1), 21(4), Rule 36(5)(b) and Appendices XII and XIII are read harmoniously, it is clear that the authorities can seize the vehicles even if they are used for transporting the minerals that are raised without any lawful authority. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners in this regard are not tenable in law. Further Section 21(4) and 21(5) are independent. While Section 21(4) empowers a power to seize the vehicle that are used for transporting the minerals without lawful authority, Section 21(5) empowers the authorities to recover the minerals raised without any lawful authority or to recover the price of the minerals so raised if they have already been disposed of. The District Collector or the District Forest Officer are empowered with such powers under Rule 36-A(1). Therefore, the power conferred under Section 21(4) is independent from that of the powers conferred on the authorities under Section 21(5) read with Rule 36-A(1). The District Collector or the District Forest Officer are empowered with such powers under Rule 36-A(1). Therefore, the power conferred under Section 21(4) is independent from that of the powers conferred on the authorities under Section 21(5) read with Rule 36-A(1). As a result, the contention of the petitioners that the seizure of the vehicles under Section 21(4) is unwarranted in view of the powers conferred under Section 21(5) and Rule 36-A(1) cannot be accepted. Consequently, the argument that Section 21(5) and Rule 36-A(1) enables the authority to collect a maximum seigniorage fee or a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- and therefore, the vehicles cannot be seized also is not tenable in law. Hence, the contention that the transport operators cannot be made liable for the contravention alleged to have been committed by the third parties is also not tenable. 21-22. It is therefore clear that the authorities notified under G.O. Ms. No. 167 Industries (MMC-1) dated 16-6-94 to exercise powers under Section 21(4) of the Act against the persons who contravene under Section 4(1) of the Act shall exercise the power not only on the land where minerals are raised without any lawful authority, but also while transporting the minerals, so raised. Hence the contention of the petitioners that the seizure is illegal and without jurisdiction cannot be accepted. It also sounds good that the Legislature, in their own wisdom, has empowered the authorities so notified to seize not only vehicles, but also the tools, equipments and any other things that are used for raising the minerals without any lawful authority. Such seizure of the tools, equipments, vehicles and any other things that are used for raising the minerals without lawful authority is inevitable, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, for the purpose of having cognizance of the offence relating to the contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, any hardship caused to such owners of tools, equipments, vehicles, or any other things that are used for raising the minerals without lawful authority, due to such seizure, cannot itself constitute arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power; particularly when the object aimed at by the Legislature is to prevent the mining operations without any lawful authority and loss of revenue, to the State. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners in this regard is not tenable in law. 23. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners in this regard is not tenable in law. 23. However, the authorities, by exercising the powers conferred on them under Section 21(4) of the Act should not infringe the rights of the public to quarry for bona fide, domestic and agricultural purpose, as provided under Rule 6(1) nor the right of valid lease licence holders. Such actions of the authorities are to be held as arbitrary or unreasonable. The grievance of the petitioners in such cases deserves my consideration. If the authorities arbitrarily and unreasonably ignore the lawful rights of the public/valid lease/licence holders, certainly, this Court can interfere to check such powers of the authorities, in the matter of seizing the vehicles. 24. Considering such genuine grievance of the petitioners on the one hand and the lawful and reasonable exercise of powers by the authorities on the other hand, and striking a balance between them, I direct the respondents to release the vehicles on the following conditions : (i) The owners of the vehicles of their authorised agents shall satisfy with relevant material evidence, the competent authorities notified for the purpose of Section 21(4) of the Act that the transportation of the minerals by the vehicles seized is for the bona fide, domestic and agricultural purpose within 5 days from the date of seizure if the said authorities require so if they are not satisfied with, in spite of production of a letter of authorisation from the person for whose use the minerals are intended, as contemplated under Rule 36(5)(b). (ii) The owners of the vehicles or their authorised agents shall satsify the competent authorities with material evidence that the minerals transported by the vehicles are raised with lawful authority within five days from the date of seizure, if the authorities require so, if they are not satisfied with production of the transport permit and subsequent despatch slip prescribed in Appendices XII and XIII, as contemplated under Rule 36(5)(b). (iii) The vehicle owners or their authorised agents shall establish the ownership of the vehicles. (iv) The authorities shall require the owners of the vehicles or their authorised agent to make a minimum payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards deposit, taking into consideration, the value of the vehicle seized, within a period of five days from the date of seizure. (iii) The vehicle owners or their authorised agents shall establish the ownership of the vehicles. (iv) The authorities shall require the owners of the vehicles or their authorised agent to make a minimum payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards deposit, taking into consideration, the value of the vehicle seized, within a period of five days from the date of seizure. (v) The respective petitioner shall give an undertaking that the petitioner will not alienate the concerned vehicle in question and produce the vehicle as and when called for by the respondents. (vi) Again, the respective petitioners shall give an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be used in unauthorised transportation of mineral or use it for any illegal purpose. (vii) It is open to the respective petitioner to submit his explanation to the contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. (viii) Immediately after the compliance of the above conditions, the authorities shall release the vehicles. (ix) The competent authority shall proceed with and complete the necessary enquiry initiated for the contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act against the petitioners within three months from the date of seizure, and the amount deposited in pursuance of this order shall be adjusted towards the final decision in such proceedings. In the result, all these writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Consequently, no orders are required in the respective W. M. Ps. and they are dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Orders accordingly.