Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1966 (ALL)

UMA STONE CRUSHING COMPANY v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-07-07

JAYASHREE TIWARI, V.M.SAHAI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether under Rule 13 of the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 (in brief the Rules 2002) the stored minerals (boulders) could be seized by the respondents simultaneously while issuing a show cause notice by the Mines Officer. 2. The petitioner was granted a mining lease on 23.3.2006 on part of plot No. 7347 Ka area 1.25 acre by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra under Form MM3 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession ) Rules, 1963. The lease was for a period of ten years from 23.3.2006 to 23.3.2016. Form MM11 was issued for mining as well as for transportation of boulder and Gitti. According to the petitioner he did not violate any terms of the mining lease and his stone crusher was installed on the boundary at a distance of 70 meters from the mining quarry within the mining area leased out to the petitioner. The boulders were kept on the mining area of the petitioner which were being crushed by the petitioner and Gitti was manufactured. 3. It appears that on the basis of some complaint dated 9.4.2010 by one Anoop Tripathi the stone crusher was inspected by the respondents and it was found that boulders were lying near the crushing machine which was being crushed by the petitioner and Gitti was manufactured which was to be transported. The Mining Officer/District Magistrate, Sonebhadra issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 19.4.2010 stating therein that the petitioner has illegally stored 11500 sq.m. of Gitti and 4500 sq. m. boulders. The petitioner had no licence to store boulders and the petitioner was asked to furnish information that the boulders were obtained by the petitioner from which mining lease holders; under which agreement they have supplied the boulders to the petitioner; if Gitti have been transported by the petitioner then copies of Form MM 11 be furnished; the details of name and address of the mining lease holders who have supplied boulders to the petitioner be also furnished. In the show-cause notice it was also stated that the petitioner has been carrying out illegal mining operation and therefore stock of boulders found near the crusher of the petitioner as mentioned above was seized by the mining officer while issuing show-cause notice on 19.4.2010. 4. In the show-cause notice it was also stated that the petitioner has been carrying out illegal mining operation and therefore stock of boulders found near the crusher of the petitioner as mentioned above was seized by the mining officer while issuing show-cause notice on 19.4.2010. 4. The question is whether the Mining Officer could seize the boulders simultaneously while issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002. It is necessary to extract the Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 13. Inspection and checking of the storage of minerals.—(1) For the purpose of checking of the stored minerals or for any purposes connected with the Act or rules made thereunder, the District Officer or the Officer authorised by the State Government may, (a) enter, inspect any such storage premises, (b) weigh, measure or take measurement of stock of mineral(s) lying in the store, (c) examine any document, book, register or record in the possession, (d) take extracts from or make copies of such document, book, register or records, (e) summon on order the production of any such document, book, register or records as is referred to in clause (c), (f) summon or examine any person having the control of or connected with any stock of the mineral, (g) call for such information or return as may be considered necessary. 2. If any illegality is found in the stock of the minerals, the District Officer or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may issue a notice to such licensee to explain his case within thirty days from the receipt of the notice and if no explanation is submitted within stipulated time or the explanation so submitted is not found satisfactory then the licence may be determined by the District Officer and if the stock so checked is found without any lawful authority, the same may be seized and confiscated. 5. Rule 13(1) gives power to the Mining Officer to check and inspect the stored minerals, take measurement and inspect books etc. 5. Rule 13(1) gives power to the Mining Officer to check and inspect the stored minerals, take measurement and inspect books etc. Rule 13(2) provides that if any illegality is found by the Mining Officer or the District Officer or the officer authorised by the State Government in the stock of the minerals then show-cause notice has to be issued to the petitioner calling his explanation within thirty days and if the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not found satisfactory then the authorities have the power to come to the conclusion that the stock of mineral checked by them were stored without any lawful authority, and the authority could direct for its seizure and confiscation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently urged that since the petitioner was not holding any licence for storage of boulders, therefore after the mining operation, the storage of boulders had become illegal. 7. The petitioner had stated that the stone crusher had been established on the boundaries of the lease area and no licence is required to store boulders as after mining and excavation the boulders are stored on the leased area. The distance between stone crusher and the quarry is only 70 meters whereas in the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the distance is about 150 meters. However, if after mining operation the boulder coming out after excavation are kept on the area which had been leased to the petitioner then there is no occasion for the petitioner for obtaining licence for the storage of the boulders as provided by Rule 11(a) of the Rules 2002. 8. From the reply given by the Mines Officer under the Right to Information Act filed as Annexure -3 to the rejoinder affidavit it is clear that no mining lease holder had obtained any licence for storage of minerals on the area which had been leased out to him. The petitioner who is a mining lease holder is not required to obtain any licence for storage of boulders excavated by him from his mines which were stored on the mining area for which the petitioner was holding a valid lease. 9. The petitioner who is a mining lease holder is not required to obtain any licence for storage of boulders excavated by him from his mines which were stored on the mining area for which the petitioner was holding a valid lease. 9. If the petitioner is required to obtain any licence for storage of boulders within the area for which he had been leased then such an order should have been passed by the respondents only after one month from the date of service of show cause notice, giving detailed reasons but without expiry of one month of show-cause notice the boulders could not be seized by the respondents in view of clear provision of Rule 13(2) of the Rules 2002. Therefore, show-cause notice dated 19.4.2010 and simultaneous seizure of boulders is contrary to Rule 13(2) of the Rules 2002. 10. Therefore, we direct that the seizure of boulders by the respondents simultaneously alongwith show-cause notice dated 19.4.2010 is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed. However, if the petitioner submits his reply to the show-cause notice within the period of one month from today it shall be considered by the respondents and the respondents shall pass a detailed reasoned order after considering each and every point raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The show-cause notice dated 19.4.2010 so far as it directs seizure of the petitioner’s boulders is quashed. The boulders which had been seized by the respondents shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. However, the petitioner shall submit his reply to the show-cause notice within the period of one month from today which shall be considered by the respondents and the respondents shall pass a detailed reasoned order after considering each and every point raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. 12. Parties shall bear their own costs. ————