Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 218 (MP)

Rajkumar Patel v. State of M. P.

2015-02-20

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.S.JHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner appears in person. He submits that this petition is pending since 7.12.2014 and even in the past whenever the matter was listed the Advocates engaged by him expressed inability to appear before the Court because of the call given by the Bar Association to boycott the Court. 2. He submits that in view of the urgency he cannot wait any further as the Truck seized by the respondent-Authority is the only source of income for the petitioner. He submits that he may be permitted to discharge the Advocate engaged by him who has expressed inability to appear before the Court today. 3. The petitioner was counseled that in that case later on the petitioner will not be permitted to insist for rehearing of the case on the ground that on the earlier occasion the matter was not argued by the Advocate. The petitioner has understood the consequences of discharging the Advocate and is yet determined to argue the case personally. He accepts that if the petition is dismissed he will not resort to filing of an application for restoration of writ petition on the ground that his Advocate be permitted to argue the case afresh. On that understanding, we have allowed the petitioner to discharge his Advocate namely Shri R. M. Sharma, Advocate. 4. We have heard the petitioner and perused the relevant record appended to the writ petition as well as the reply affidavit filed by the respondents. 5. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for quashing of the order dated 28-11-2014, passed by the Collector, Mining Section, Panna by which in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for illegal transportation of minerals a penalty equivalent to ten times the market value of the minerals has been imposed upon him. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to release the petitioner's truck, bearing No. MP19HA-3868, which has been seized on account of illegal transportation of minerals. 6. The petitioner, by relying on the provisions of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for short - “the Rules of 2006”) as well as the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Agrawal Vs. 6. The petitioner, by relying on the provisions of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for short - “the Rules of 2006”) as well as the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & others (W.A.No. 1320/2011), dated 21-3-2012, submits that the Collector has no power to impose penalty equivalent to ten times the market value as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision while interpreting the provisions of Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006, more so, as the petitioner had not given his consent for compounding the offence and in such circumstances the Collector should have sent the matter to the competent Magistrate without passing any order. It is submitted that the authority seizing the vehicle had asked the driver of the petitioner to give consent for compounding in writing on an affidavit which is not binding upon the petitioner and in such circumstances, the impugned order imposing penalty as well as seizing the vehicle deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the authority has failed to notice that the petitioner had a valid transit pass for transporting the minerals and, therefore, no action against him could have been initiated against him. 7. The respondents have filed a return and have stated that the vehicle of the petitioner was found illegally transporting road metal Gitti which is a minor mineral and the alleged transit pass which was produced before the authority did not contain the date and time which is mandatory to be specified and in such circumstances, proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by seizing the vehicle under the provisions of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (in short - “the Rules of 1996”) as well as the Rules of 2006. 8. It is stated that subsequently a notice dated 27-11-2014 was issued to the petitioner as well as his driver pursuant to which his driver filed an affidavit as well as the reply accepting the defect in the transit pass and requesting for compounding the offence. 9. 8. It is stated that subsequently a notice dated 27-11-2014 was issued to the petitioner as well as his driver pursuant to which his driver filed an affidavit as well as the reply accepting the defect in the transit pass and requesting for compounding the offence. 9. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned order dated 28-11-2014 has been passed by the respondent No. 2 which is in accordance with law as the Collector has power and authority to impose penalty to the extent of ten times the market value of the mineral in view of the amended provisions of Rule 30(16) of the Rules of 1996, as amended by notification dated 23-3-2013, a copy of which has been filed by the respondents alongwith the return as Annexure R-2. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid provisions of law and the stand taken on affidavit, the benefit and relief as sought for by the petitioner on the strength of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Agrawal (supra) is misconceived and misplaced. 10. Having heard the petitioner as well as having perused the return and the record of the case it is observed that the truck of the petitioner, bearing No. MP19HA-3868 was seized by the respondent /authorities on 26-11-2014 and thereafter a show cause notice, Annexure P-5, dated 27-11-2014 was issued to the petitioner as well as his driver and the lease holder, Shri Madan Lal Grover in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed by them under the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1996 as well as Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006. It is also apparent that the petitioner as well as the driver have filed a reply to the show cause notice on 27-11-2014 but the driver, in addition, submitted an affidavit as well as made an additional statement in his reply agreeing to compounding of the offence. The record further indicates that the Collector (Mines) thereafter proceeded against the petitioner and has passed the impugned order imposing penalty equivalent to ten times the market value of the minerals in view of the provisions of Rule 30 (16) of the Rules of 1996. 11. The record further indicates that the Collector (Mines) thereafter proceeded against the petitioner and has passed the impugned order imposing penalty equivalent to ten times the market value of the minerals in view of the provisions of Rule 30 (16) of the Rules of 1996. 11. From the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is clear that the petitioner was transporting road metal Gitti which is a minor mineral and, therefore, the authority had initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules of 1996 and under the provisions of the Rules of 2006. 12. The relevant provisions of the Rules of 1996 necessary for adjudication of the dispute raised herein are Rule 30, sub rules (15), (16), (17) and 18 which are to the following effect :- (15) Whosoever transports minerals or their products like bricks, tiles, lime, dressed stone, clocks, Slabs, tiles, chips, stone dust and ballast etc. without a valid pass in For IX or if the transit pass is found to be incomplete distorted or tampered with, the Collector, Additional Collector, Chief Executive Officer of Zila/Janpad Panchayat and [officer authorised by the Gram Sabha]/Deputy Director, Mining Officer, Assistant Mining Officer or Mining Inspector may seized the mineral or its products together with all tools and equipment and the vehicle used for transport. (16) The Collector, Additional Collector, Chief Executive Officer of Zila/Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat/Deputy Director, Mining Officer by an order in writing may impose a penalty up to Rs. Ten Thousand which in no case shall be less than rupees one thousand.” (17) The seized mineral or its products, tools, equipment and vehicle may be released when the penalty so imposed is deposited by the offender. (18) If the penalty so imposed is not paid within 15 days from the date of the order, of imposing the penalty, all the minerals or its product, tools equipment and vehicles etc. so seized shall stand forfeited and shall become the property of the State Government. 13. It is also clear from a perusal of Annexure R-2 that Rule 30(16) has been amended vide Gazette notification dated 23-3-2013 as under:- in sub-rule (16), after the words “Mining Officer” the words “Officer In- charge Mining Section, Officer In-charge Flying Squad” shall be inserted and at the place of words “upto Rupees Ten Thousand” the words “upto Ten Times of Market Value” shall be substituted. 14. 14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law makes it clear that in case any person is found transporting minerals or their products without a valid pass as prescribed under Form IX or on the strength of an incomplete, distorted or tampered transit pass, the Collector, Additional Collector, Chief Executive Officer of Zila/Janpad Panchayat and [officer authorised by the Gram Sabha]/Deputy Director, Mining Officer, Assistant Mining Officer or Mining Inspector may seize the mineral or its products together with all tools and equipment and the vehicle used for transport 15. Sub Rule (16) of Rule 30 as amended by the Gazette notification dated 23-3-2013 provides that the said authorities as well as the “Officer In-charge Mining Section, Officer In-charge Flying Squad” may by an order in writing impose a penalty up to ten times of market value. Sub Rule (17) provides that the seized tools or vehicle may be released when the penalty so imposed is deposited by the offender. 16. In view of the aforesaid specific and clear provisions of the Rules of 1996 it is luminescently clear that the Collector has the power or authority to impose penalty up to ten times the market value of the mineral and the vehicle of the petitioner can be released on depositing of such penalty. In view of the aforesaid provisions of sub rules (15), (16), (17) and 18 of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1996 action has been taken against the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed. 17. We are also of the considered opinion that the contention of the petitioner that the matter in the present petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Rajiv Agrawal (supra) is also misconceived and misplaced as the decision in the case of Rajiv Agrawal (supra) was rendered in context of the provisions of Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006 and related to major mineral i.e. coal. The present petition relates to transportation of a minor mineral in which action against the petitioner has been taken under the provisions of the Rules of 1996 as amended by a Gazette notification dated 23-3-2013 and an order imposing penalty has been issued. A bare perusal of the impugned order itself indicates that it has not been passed under Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006. 18. A bare perusal of the impugned order itself indicates that it has not been passed under Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention of the petitioner that the Collector concerned has no power or authority to pass the impugned order deserves to be rejected in view of the specific and clear provisions of sub rules (15), (16), (17) and 18 of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1996. 19. We are also of the considered opinion that having rejected the contention of the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the Collector and the contention that the issue involved herein was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Rajiv Agrawal (supra) this Court need not go into the other factual aspects raised by the petitioner in view of the provisions of Rule 57 of the Rules of 1996 which, in no uncertain terms, provides for an alternative, efficacious, statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, while the contentions of the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the Collector and the matter being squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Rajiv Agrawal (supra) are rejected, the petition as filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative, efficacious, statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1996 in respect of all other issues including the factual disputes raised by him. 20. It goes without saying that the petitioner would also be at liberty to file an application for condonation of delay as provided under Rule 59 of the Rules of 1996 before the appellate authority and would be at liberty to take benefit of the pendency of the present proceedings by bringing that fact to the notice of the appellate authority while praying for condonation of delay. 21. With the aforesaid observations and liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.