Judgment 1. The Writ Petitioner is said to be a Lorry owner bearing Registration No. TN 58 B 9394. While his lorry was transporting unauthorisedly 4 Black Granite Blocks measuring 8.628 Cbm on 2.9.2006 at 10 p.m., the lorry was intercepted and checked near National Highways Tollgate by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri . It was found that the lorry was transporting 4 Black Granite Blocks without valid permission and dispatch slip. Hence, the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar seized the same. The petitioner confessed that 4 Black Granite Blocks were transported in the Lorry and he agreed to compound the offence and pay the penalty to be levied. 2. As per Rule 36(5)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, all the vehicles used for transporting any mineral from any area shall be in possession of the individual dispatch slips for the quantity of the minerals available in the vehicle at all times of transportation of the mineral by the vehicle. 3. Since the Lorry driver did not possess the dispatch slips for the quantity of minerals available in the vehicle at the time of checking of the said Lorry, the first respondent passed an order dated 22.11.2006 under Rule 36-A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, imposing the penalty of enhanced Seigniorage fee to the maximum of 15 times of the normal rate. The Seigniorage fee is Rs.2625/-per Cbm. For the total volume of 8.628 Cbm, the Seigniorage fee works out to Rs.22649. The penalty of Rs.3,39,785 (Rs.22649x15=Rs.3,39,785) was collected at the rate of 15 times of the Seigniorage fee. Thus, in total, a sum of Rs.3,62,384/-was directed to be paid by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the second respondent. In the mean time, the petitioner also filed a Writ Petition No. 46586 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to return the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 58 B 9394 seized by the revenue officials. 5. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 1.12.2006 and directed the second respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle by considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner. 5. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 1.12.2006 and directed the second respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle by considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner. The contention of the writ petitioner is that only 3 times the normal rate of seignorage fee could be imposed as penalty as imposed in the case of others and the petitioner could not be singled out. 6. The second respondent disposed of the appeal dated 28.11.2006 preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2007. The second respondent directed the first respondent District Collector to release the vehicle on furnishing surety by the writ petitioner to value of the vehicle as assessed by the Regional Transport Officer. It was also directed to hand over the material available in the lorry to TAMIN, Krishnagiri. 7. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the first respondent in levying penalty of Rs.3,62,384/- for illicit transportation of Black Granite Blocks without valid permit, in terms of Rule 36(A)(1) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 8. The petitioner filed a second appeal to the third respondent against the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2007 of the second respondent. The third respondent rejected the appeal by G.O.(2D) No.7, Industries Department dated 22.1.2009. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the aforesaid Government Order. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the first respondent passed the order dated 19.11.2006 in the case of one Lorry bearing Registration No. KA 01 B 5535 that transported the mineral without permit and the enhanced seignorage fee was collected only by 3 times of the normal rate. 11. Likewise, in another order dated 19.11.2006 in respect of the Lorry bearing Regn. No. TN 29 U 1809, the first respondent herein passed only the enhanced seignorage fee at the rate of 3 times of the normal rate and not 15 times, as ordered in the present case. Hence, it is a discrimination practiced by the first respondent in the case of the petitioner alone. Hence, he ha sought for interference by this Court. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that those orders dated 19.11.2006 of the first respondent were pursuant to the order of this Court. Hence, the first respondent had no other option except to impose 3 times seignorage fee. Hence, he ha sought for interference by this Court. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that those orders dated 19.11.2006 of the first respondent were pursuant to the order of this Court. Hence, the first respondent had no other option except to impose 3 times seignorage fee. Further, it is submitted that in those cases, the transportation was only colour granite. But, in the present case, it was Black granite, which is more precious. 13. He has also brought to my notice Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules. He has submitted that the authority is given discretion to levy penalty at the enhanced seignorage fee at the maximum of 15 times of a normal rate. It is his further submission that once the authority has levied the enhanced seignorage fee, the petitioner is not liable for prosecution under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner unauthorisedly transported Black granites with the volume of 8.628 Cubic Metres. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Rule 36-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules: "36-A Penalties – (1) Whenever any person contravenes the provisions of (sub sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 4) of the Act in any land, enhanced seignorage fee upto a maximum of fifteen times the normal rate subject to a minimum of (twenty five 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. Therefore, the first respondent has power to levy enhanced seignorage fee at the rate of 15 times than the normal rate. In this case, the petitioner is directed to pay the enhanced seignorage fee upto the maximum of 15 times of the normal rate. 17. The only objection of the petitioner is that in respect of the cases (mentioned above) relating to two lorries that also transported unauthorisedly minerals, the first respondent passed orders dated 19.11.2006 imposing the penalty only 3 times of the seignorage fee. Those orders are enclosed in the typed set of papers. 18. 17. The only objection of the petitioner is that in respect of the cases (mentioned above) relating to two lorries that also transported unauthorisedly minerals, the first respondent passed orders dated 19.11.2006 imposing the penalty only 3 times of the seignorage fee. Those orders are enclosed in the typed set of papers. 18. I have perused those orders. Those orders were passed when the petitioners therein have got an order from this Court. Further more, in those cases, colour granites were transported illegally. But, in the present case, it is the black granite. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is the discretion exercised by the first respondent to levy penalty as per Rules. It is a different matter if the first respondent has levied penalty beyond 15 times of the seignorage fee. In those circumstances, the petitioner could point out that it is beyond his powers. The petitioner cannot ask for the same penalty that was imposed in some other matters. It is for the authorities to decide as to the quantum of the penalty. Of course, the same should be within the powers contemplated under the Rules. Rule 36-A speaks about the levy of penalty upto the maximum of 15 times the normal rate. 19. When the petitioner unauthorisedly transported Black granite, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent in imposing the penalty of 15 times of the seignorage fee. Nowadays there are various instances of illegal transportation of minerals. In my view, the authorities should be firm in dealing with those matters, without giving room to those allegations and the authorities shall levy the maximum seignorage fee as penalty, so that the illegal transportation shall be nipped in the bud by levying penalty at the maximum rate. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.