Judgment :- Dinakaran, CJ. 1. 1) The petitioners in these batch of Writ Petitions are the owners of the lorries which are used for transporting sand without valid permit in the areas of T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District. The responent - Tahsildar seized the impugned lorries on 1.12.2008 at about 8-00 P.M. near Hanumanthanagar, Channapatna, Ramanagara District, alleging that the petitioners are transporting sand illegally by the impugned lorries, above 3ft. from the body level. 1.2) By proceedings dated 1.12.2008, the respondent called upon the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- per lorry and in case of petitioner No.8, the respondent demanded a fine of Rs.50,000/-, of course, without prejudice to initiate suitable further action against the petitioners, in case of non-payment of the fine amount. 1.3) On receipt of the notice, petitioners made representation on 8.12.2008 requesting the respondent to release their lorries as they have not violated any Rules or Regulations, as the petitioners are only the owners of the lorries in question. The respondent, without appreciating the explanation offered by the petitioners in their representation dated 8.12.2008, passed a final order on 8.12.2008 itself calling upon the petitioners to pay the fine amount proposed, failing which, the impugned lorries seized, would be brought to auction on 11.12.2008. 2.1) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners moved this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 15520-15523 /2008 and 15637-15641/ 2008 C/w. Writ Petition Nos. 16057-16058/2008 and Writ Petitions Nos. 15520-15523/2008 and 15637-15641/2008. At the time of issuing notices, this Court directed the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Channapatna, not to proceed with the auction, if each of the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- and since the petitioners were not heard in the matter before initiation of the impugned action and therefore, a direction was also issued to the respondent to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the matter. 2.2) When the matter came up for admission on 19.12.2008, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge made the following order: "The petitioners shall appear before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Channapatna either in person or through their Advocate within two weeks from today and file necessary statements along with requisite documents, if any, in their favour. Thereafter, the respondent shall consider them and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. The whole process shall be concluded within two monts from this day. Thereafter, the respondent shall consider them and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners. The whole process shall be concluded within two monts from this day. It is also open for the petitioners to file applications for appropriate interim prayers. If such applications are filed, they shall be considered by respondent in accordance with law." 3) Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent -Tahsildar heard the petitioners and passed the impugned order on 1.1.2009 which is under challenge in the present batch of Writ Petitions. 4) Mr. P.S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-Tahsildar has no jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to impose a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-as referred to above and therefore, the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction. 5) Per contra, learned Advocate General invites our attention to Section 4 and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "the MMDRAct") and submits that the authorities are conferred with powers to take appropriate action under two different statutes. The very mentioning of a wrong provision or omission to mention the provision which contains the source of power, will not invalidate an order where the source of such power exists. In this regard, learned Advocate General placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs Tulsiram Patel (1385) 3 SCC 398 and the decision in High Court of Gujarat And Another Vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat (2003) 4 SCC 712. 6) By way of reply, learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners submits that even assuming the Government has got the powers under the provisions of the MMDRAct and the Rules framed under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, (for short "KMMC Rules"). the only relevant rules which are applicable are, Rules 42 and 44 of the said Rules. But both the Rules do not empower the respondent to impose a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as imposed in the impugned order dated 1.12.2008. 7.1) We have given our careful consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties. the only relevant rules which are applicable are, Rules 42 and 44 of the said Rules. But both the Rules do not empower the respondent to impose a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as imposed in the impugned order dated 1.12.2008. 7.1) We have given our careful consideration to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties. 7.2) For better appreciation of the facts, the relevant portion in the impugned order dated 1.1.2009 is extracted as hereunder: "All the lorries have been seized on Mysore-Bangalore highway within the jurisdiction of Channapattana Taluk and found them violating Section 73 of KLR Act 1964 and carrying sand without permit and heaping sand above body level which violate Government Order No.CI.05.MM.2005 dated 06.8.2005 and No. DMG/DD (MA)/sand;TP-3/2008-09/1822 dated 05.9.2008 (exhibit-2) and Section 115 Motor Vehicle Act 1988, Section 221-A(5) of Motor Vehicle Act 1989 and the Control of National Highway (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002. Proper mahazar was prepared, owners of the lorries were issued with notice and vehicles were handed over to the concerned jurisdictional police station for safe custody till further order of Executive Magistrate of Channapatana Taluk. Owners of the vehicles have been informed to pay penalty of rupees One Lakh except vehicle No.KA-03-C-9084 rupees Fifty Thousands for violation of Section 73 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964. This is done under Section 73 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as suitable amount in view of extreme loss caused to Government by unauthorised removal of sand and loss done to environment. The truck owners have been given one week time for payment of penalty vide notice dated 01.12.2008, the owners of the vehicles have not responded. Final notice was given on 08.12.2008 to pay the penaly failing which vehicles will be auctioned on 11.12.2008. At the time of seizing the sand filled lorries, the owner/drivers of said lorries failed to produce any document including Registration Certificate of vehicle, Tax Book of Vehicle, Insurance papers, permit for carrying sand and even drivers were not having any driving license with them. They have been issued with notice in writing for violation of law of land and given opportunity to pay penalty and get their vehicles released, but none of them responded. They have been issued with notice in writing for violation of law of land and given opportunity to pay penalty and get their vehicles released, but none of them responded. The illegal extraction of sand is prohibited under Section 73 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and illegal transportation of sand will attract Government Order No.CI.05.MM.2005 dated 06.8.2005 and No. DMG/DD(MA)/sand: P-3/2008-09/1822 dated 05.9.2008. The illegal extraction of sand causes irreparable damage to the environment and also damage to the ecological balance of earth and I am of the opinion that the penalty of one lakh imposed is correct. Hence I, HS Arunaprabha, Executive Magistrate of Channapatana Taluk initiate action against respondents under Section 73 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 pass the following order. This refer orders of Hon' ble High Court W.P.No. 15520-23/2008 & 15637-15641/2008 dated 19th December, 2008. Orders In the present case, I impose penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh) on truck owners/respondent 1 to 10 and Rs. 50.000/-imposed on truck owner/ respondent 11. This is suitable especially if one compares the penalty with the irreparable damages caused by them to the environment and for cheating Government." 7.3) It is true that the respondent has relied upon Section 73(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964 (for short the KLR Act"), which reads thus: "73. Recovery of value of natural product unauthorisedly removed from certain lands: (1) Any person who shall unauthorisedly remove from any land which is set a part for a special purpose or from any land which is the property of Government, any natural product shall be liable to the State Government for the value thereof which shall be recoverable from him as an arrear of land revenue, in addition to any penalty to which he may be liable under this Act for such unauthorised removal; and not withstanding any criminal proceedings which may be instituted against him in respect of such unauthorised removal. (2) The decision of the Tahsildar as to the value of any such natural product shall be final" (emphasis supplied) 7.4 Section 73(1) and (2) of the KLR Act empowers to take action when a person unauthorisedly removes the property of the Government or any natural product. In which case, the Government shall recover from him the value of such property or any natural product. In which case, the Government shall recover from him the value of such property or any natural product. That apart, such person is also liable to pay penalty in addition to the recovery of the value of such property or any natural product unauthorisedly removed, notwithstanding any Criminal proceedings which may be instituted against him in respect of such unauthorized removal. Section 73(2) of the KLR Act provides that the decision of the Tahsildar, as to the value of any such natural product shall be final. 7.5) Section 192-A, 192-B and 192-C as inserted by the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007 (for short "`the KLR (Amendment) Act") read thus; "192-A.- Offences and Penalties.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the rules made thereunder whoever commits any of the offences specified in column (2) of the Table below, shall on conviction by a judicial Magistrate of first class for each of such offence be punishable with the sentence indicated in column (3) thereof. Sl.No. Offence Punishment (1) (2) (3) Unlawfully enters or occupies on any Government land with the intention of holding that Government land. Provided that it shall not apply to cases of Jamma, Bane lands in Coorg District or encroached government lands regularised or ending for regularization before the Committee constituted under Sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act. Imprisonment for one year and fine of rupees five thousand (I) (2) (3) 2. Cheats and thereby dishonestly creates documents for the purpose of selling, mortagaging or transferring by gift or otherwise of any Government land. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand 3. Creates a forged document regarding Government lands with an intention to use it for that purpose or to grab such land. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees five thousand 4. Being a Revenue Officer entrusted with the respondent of reporting unlawful occupation of Govemment land or initiating action to remove such unauthorized occupiers fails to report or take action to remove such unlawful occupants. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees five thousand 4. Being a Revenue Officer entrusted with the respondent of reporting unlawful occupation of Govemment land or initiating action to remove such unauthorized occupiers fails to report or take action to remove such unlawful occupants. Provided that it shall not apply to cases of Jamma, Bane lands in Coorg District or encroached Government lands regularized or pending for regularization before the committee constituted under Sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act: Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand (5) Sells any agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without getting such land converted or Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand. (1) (2) (3) Without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. Provided that it shall not apply to cases which are regularised by the government by formulating a special scheme in this behalf. 6. Creates a forged document, regarding conversion of agricultural land for non- agricultural use or authorising the holder of agricultural land to use for non-agricultural purpose. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees five thousand. 7. Being a public servant entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining records or entrusted with the responsibility of reporting unlawful conversion to the competent authority fails to report to the competent authority fails to report to the competent authority or to initiate action against unlawful conversion of revenue lands for non- agricultural purposes. Provided that it shall not apply to cases which are regularized by the government by formulating a special scheme in this behalf. Imprisonment for three years and fine of rupees ten thousand. (1) .(2) (3) 8. Contravenes any lawful order passed under this Act. with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for the first offence and five times the fine for the second and subsequent offences. 192-B. Abetment of offence.- Whoever abets any offence punishable by or under this Act or attempts to commit any such offence shall be punished with the penalty provided by or under this Act for committing such offence. (emphasis supplied) 192-C. Punishment under other laws not barred.-Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from being prosecuted and punished under any other law for the time being in force for any Act or omission made punishable by or under this act. (emphasis supplied) 192-C. Punishment under other laws not barred.-Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from being prosecuted and punished under any other law for the time being in force for any Act or omission made punishable by or under this act. (emphasis supplied) 8) Placing reliance on Section 192-A of the KLR (Amendment) Act, learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the maximum punishment that would be imposed in case of any violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is, as provided in clauses (1) to (8) of Section 192(A) supra. Therefore. the respondent, in any event, has no authority of law to impose a fine ofRs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioners. But we are unable to appreciate the said contention, because, Section 192A of the KLR (Amendment) Act is instituted against the person in respect of unauthorised removal of the Government property or natural product by the judicial Magistrate First Class, which action is independent of the action that may be initiated by the Tahsildar under Section 73 of the KLR Act, as such action of the Tahsildar, notwithstanding any criminal proceedings, which may be instituted against him, in respect such unauthorised removal. Therefore, notwithstanding the impugned proceedings, the Government is empowered to take Criminal action before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In such Criminal proceedings, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, by exercising his jurisdiction, is empowered to pass appropriate orders under Section 192-A. The penalty prescribed under Section 192-A are meant only to impose in such Criminal action that may be initiated under Section 192-A of the KLR (Amendment) Act but not for the action provided under Section 73(1) of the KLR Act. The Tahsildar, by exercising the power under Section 73(2), need not wait till the jurisdictional Magistrate First Class takes the statutory offence into cognizance. Therefore, Section 192-A would not restrict the power and jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to impose a penalty under Section 73 of the KLR Act. 9.1 The next question that falls for our consideration is, to what extent the Tahsildar could impose a penalty under Section 73(1) by exercising the power under Section 73 (2) of the KLR Act. Therefore, Section 192-A would not restrict the power and jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to impose a penalty under Section 73 of the KLR Act. 9.1 The next question that falls for our consideration is, to what extent the Tahsildar could impose a penalty under Section 73(1) by exercising the power under Section 73 (2) of the KLR Act. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the following portion of Section 73 (1), viz., "...in addition to any penalty to which he may be liable under this Act for such unauthorized removal...." This again indicates that in addition to the penalty which he may be liable under this Act for such unauthorised removal, the Tahsildar is empowered to pass appropriate orders with respect to the removal of the Government property or natural product unauthorisedly by such person. Therefore, the power to pass a penalty is only prescribed under Section 192-A. On the other hand, the Tahsildar has got independent power to pass appropriate order with regard to the removal of government propert3)'or natural product unauthorisedly by such person. There is no limit prescribed against it. The statute itself indicated that the value of the property removed or the natural product is a guideline and the decision of the Tahsildar, as to value of such removal of Government property or natural product, shall be final. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the provisions of the MMDR Act are also directly applicable to the facts of the case. 9.2) Section 4 and Section 21 of the MMDRAct are relevant in this regard. "4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease.- (1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder." XXX XXX XXX XXX Section 4(1 A), as inserted by Act 38 of 1999, reads thus: "No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (emphasis supplied) In case, where there is violation of Section 4(1) and 4(1A), Section 21(1)(4) and (5) of the MMDR Act provides as hereunder: "21. (emphasis supplied) In case, where there is violation of Section 4(1) and 4(1A), Section 21(1)(4) and (5) of the MMDR Act provides as hereunder: "21. Penalties:- (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (1A) of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both. (2) XXX' XXX' XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX XXX (4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and for that purpose, uses 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. (4A) XXX XXX XXX XXX (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." (emphasis supplied) 9.3) Of course, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice Rules 42 (1) and 44(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short the KMMC Rules") which read thus: "42. Transport or Minor Minerals.-(1) No person shall transport or cause to be transported any minor mineral except under or in accordance with a Mineral Despatch Permit in Form-MDP issued under this rule by the Competent Authority or any other officer authorised by the State Government or the Director. (2) XXX XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX XXX (4) XXX XXX XXX XXX 44. Offences.- (1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 42 shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees five thousand or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after first such contravention. (2) XXX XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX XXX (emphasis supplied) 9.4) According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, as per Rules 42 and 44(1) of the KMMC Rules, only an imprisonment for a term of one year or a sum of Rs. 5,000/-or both could be imposed; but the vehicle could not be seized, as Rule 44 of the KMMC Rules does not provide for seizure of the vehicle. But we are unable to accept the same, because, Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act provides for seizure of the vehicle. Rules 42 and 44 of the KMMC Rules are applicable only where a Criminal action is initiated before the jurisdictional Magistrate for such illegal transporation of mines and the same shall not take away the power conferred on the authorities under Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act. In any event, to contend on behalf of the petitioners that they were indulging in illegal mining and transporating and exploiting the natural resources of the Country and they would be liable to make good the loss in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- of Rs. 10,000/-as per Sections 192-A, 192-B, 192-C of the KLR (Amendment) Act or Rules 42 and 44 of the KMCC Rules, in our considered opinion, is totally illogical and irrational and such an interpretation would only pave way to the illegal mining and transporation of minerals and exploitation of natural resources of the Country; causisng great damage and hazard to the econogy and environment. 9.5) It is also well settled that where a source of power exists, the exercise of such power is referable only to that source and not to some other source under which that power was exercised and such exercise of such power would be invalid and without jurisdiction. Similarly, if a source of power exists by reading together two provisions, whether statutory or constitutional, and the order refers to only one of them, the validity of the other should be upheld by construing it as an order passed under both the provisions. The said ratio is followed by the Apex Court in Gujarat; Kishan Mazdoor's case referred to supra. 9.6) We have already seen the power conferred under Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act on the authorities to seize the vehicle is independent of the power conferred on the Criminal Courts under Rules 42 and 44 of the KM,VIC Rules. The said ratio is followed by the Apex Court in Gujarat; Kishan Mazdoor's case referred to supra. 9.6) We have already seen the power conferred under Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act on the authorities to seize the vehicle is independent of the power conferred on the Criminal Courts under Rules 42 and 44 of the KM,VIC Rules. When such a power is available, it is for the Tahsildar either to recover the value of the property that were removed unauthorisedly or the natural product or seized the vehicle in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 21(4) and (5) of the MMDR Act, till the same is recovered, inasmuch as the power conferred on the Tahsildar under Section 73 of the KLR Act and the power conferred under Section 21(5) of the MMDRAct. In order to achieve the desired object of the legisature under Section 73(1) of the KLR Act. and Section 21(5) of the MMDRAct, certainly, the Tahsildar is empowered to invoke the power to seize the vehivle involved in such illegal transpiration conferred under Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act, for recovering the value of the property or the natural product (minerals) unauthorisedly removed. Therefore, we do not see any lack of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order by the Tahsildar. That apart, in the impugned proceedings, the Tahsildar has clearly spelt out the reasons, viz., (i) the petitioner were carrying sand without permit and heaping sand above the body level violating the Government Order; (ii) the impugned action is intended to recover suitable amount from the owners of the vehicle in view of extreme loss caused to Government by unauthorised removal of sand and loss done to environment; (iii) the owners/drivers of the impugned lorries failed to produce any documents such as Registration Certificate, Tax Book, Insurance papers, Permit for carrying sand as well as their driving licences; and (iv) the illegal extraction of sand causes irreparable damage to the environment and also damage to the ecological balance of earth. Therefore, the impugned fine was considered to be suitable, especially, if one compares the penalty with the irreparable damages caused by them to the Government and for cheating the Government. These reasons weigh much consideration in our mind to sustain the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. 10. Therefore, the impugned fine was considered to be suitable, especially, if one compares the penalty with the irreparable damages caused by them to the Government and for cheating the Government. These reasons weigh much consideration in our mind to sustain the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. 10. The only remaining contention that the impugned proceedings vitiates the principles of natural justice also liable to be rejected, as the petitioners were admittedly given a post-opportunity to pay the fine and get the lorry released but they failed to avail the same. Hence we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. Writ Petitions are dismissed, accordingly.