Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 888 (MP)

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-10-04

C.V.SIRPURKAR, R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.6.2016, whereby penalty to the tune of 10 times the value of the mineral has been imposed upon the petitioner for illegal extraction and transportation of minerals under the provisions of rule 53(1) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Navin Dubey v. State of M.P. (Writ Appeal No.98/2013) decided on 3.7.2013 and Dala Stone Crusher Lauwa v. State of M.P. and another, (Writ Petition No.7677/2016) decided on 11.5.2016, the impugned order deserves to be quashed as this Court in the aforesaid decisions has held that the Collector has no power to impose penalty to the tune of 10 times the value of the mineral seized as that power is reserved to be exercised by the Magistrate concerned. It is submitted that the aforesaid penalty can be imposed only in case where the offender concerned seeks to get the offence compounded which is not the case in the present petition. It is submitted that in the circumstances as the case of the petitioner is identical, similar orders be passed. 4. The case has been opposed by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State who submits that the petitioner has admittedly committed the offence and in such circumstances no fault can be found with the order passed by the Collector, Sidhi. The learned Government Advocate submits that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Raj Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. and others [ 2015 RN 595 =2015(2) MPHT 201 (DB)], the Collector has the power to impose penalty under the provisions of rule 30(16) of the rules of 1996, and in such circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector under the provisions of rule 53 of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2006'). 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector under the provisions of rule 53 of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2006'). It is further observed that the impugned order has been passed imposing penalty, not just for transportation but also for illegal extraction of mineral and, therefore, recourse to rule 30(16) of the Rules of 2006, cannot be resorted to. In other words, prima facie a perusal of rule 30(16) of the Rules of 2006, makes it clear that it applies only to cases of illegal transportation. 6. In the circumstances and in view of the Division Bench decisions rendered in the cases of Navin Dubey (supra) and Dala Stone Crusher Lauwa (supra), the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.6.2016 passed by the Collector, Sidhi, as far as it relates to imposition of penalty by the Collector is concerned, is hereby quashed. 7. However, as further proceedings in this regard have to be taken up by the competent authority or have to be referred to the Magistrate concerned for adjudication and as there is a finding before us to the effect that prima facie the petitioner has indulged in illegal transportation and extraction of mineral, therefore, while allowing the petition and quashing the order dated 3.6.2016, the Collector, Sidhi is directed to see that the matter is referred to the Magistrate concerned at the earliest for taking up further proceedings in accordance with law. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Sidhi for information and further action.