JUDGMENT : 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by seizure of their Tipper Lorries/Excavators alleging that the vehicles were used for contravening the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when the seizure of the vehicles was made, the Tipper Lorries were empty, not loaded by any minor minerals. The JCBs were not found involved in any activity of mining any minerals. Therefore, going by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022, the Lorries and Excavators are liable to be released. 3. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petitions. The Senior Government Pleader submitted that the findings of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022 are not legally sustainable and a Review Petition is being filed to review the said judgment. 4. The Senior Government Pleader relied on the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.23 of 2023, and stated that as instructed by this Court in the judgment dated 26.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2015 and connected cases and in the judgment dated 26.05.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 17365 of 2016 and connected cases, the Government had issued order for streamlining the compounding of offences as per G.O(Ms) No.51/2017/ID dated 21.06.2017 and in the said order it is categorically stated that the compounding fee for all the equipment/tools, empty vehicles seized in connection with illicit extraction shall be Rs.25,000/-. 5. In judgment dated 26.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2015, this Court has classified the vehicles seized in connection with illegal mining and transport of minerals into three batches and the second batch of Lorries seized were classified as the goods vehicles and JCB that are seized at the site from which the excavation was being done. The Government had issued the Government Order mentioned above after detailed consideration of the judgment of this Court and specific mention was made regarding compounding fee of empty vehicles and it was included in the said Government Order. 6. The Government had issued the Government Order mentioned above after detailed consideration of the judgment of this Court and specific mention was made regarding compounding fee of empty vehicles and it was included in the said Government Order. 6. In these cases also, the vehicles were seized not for illegal transport of mineral (as the lorries were standing stationary in the quarry) but for using the same in illegal extraction of mineral as per Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and as per Rule 108(4) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. In the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10387 of 2020, this Court has pointed out that illegal extraction of minerals, without requisite permit or in violation of the permit conditions, will amount to theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the vehicle owners/drivers were engaged in theft of minerals using their vehicles. Hence, the act of the competent authority in seizing all the vehicles/tools/equipment involved in illegal mining is as per law, contended the Senior Government Pleader. 7. This Court in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022 held as follows:- “The Mahazar does not indicate that those Lorries were loaded or being loaded with laterite stone for illegal transportation. Mere presence of vehicles in a quarry by itself cannot constitute an offence. Only if a vehicle or a receptacle is found carrying minerals without Mineral Transit Passes, that an offence can be made out. In the circumstances of the case, the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners which were not found carrying or transporting illicit minerals is illegal.” 8. The Senior Government Pleader relied on Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and pointed out that whenever any person raises, transports or cause 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. Even if the vehicles of the petitioners were not found carrying ordinary earth/red earth and even if the JCBs were not found excavating minor minerals, even then Section 21(4) will apply inasmuch as such vehicles should be treated as used for ‘causing to be raised or transported’ without any lawful authority mineral from the land. Therefore, actual loading of Lorries or actual excavation of red earth by the Excavators is not necessary to seize a vehicle/Excavator. 9. A reading of Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 shows that the intention of Sub Section is not as contended by the Senior Government Pleader. It is only when any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported without any lawful authority any mineral from any land, that the offence will commit. Mere presence of a Lorry or Excavator in a quarry site cannot be treated as attracting sub-section (4) of Section 21. 10. The Senior Government Pleader argued that as per Rule 25 of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015, every producer or dealer of a mineral or its product under the Rules shall give valid Mineral Transit Passes to every purchaser or person in charge of the carrier transporting the mineral from any mine or sale depot or mineral value addition unit or mineral processing unit in the manner stipulated in Rule 26. As per Rule 26, every dealer or producer under the Rules before he sells or transports or processes to transport minerals shall obtain Mineral Transit Passes. The Senior Government Pleader argued that Rules 25 and 26 would also indicate that the vehicles found in the quarrying area need not be found loaded with minor minerals. Mere presence of the Lorry in an illegal quarrying site itself would suffice to seize the vehicles. 11. I find that Rule 25 of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 is intended to prevent unauthorised transportation of minerals. Rule 25 provides that every producer or dealer of minerals is bound to issue valid Mineral Transit Passes to every purchaser or person in charge of the carrier transporting the minerals from any mine or sale depot or mineral value addition unit or mineral processing unit. Rule 25 provides that every producer or dealer of minerals is bound to issue valid Mineral Transit Passes to every purchaser or person in charge of the carrier transporting the minerals from any mine or sale depot or mineral value addition unit or mineral processing unit. Neither Rule 25 nor Rule 26 can be treated as one permitting the respondents to assume that every vehicle found in a quarrying site/illegal quarrying site is involved in an offence. 12. The Senior Government Pleader relied on the Government Order dated 21.06.2017, wherein the compounding fee has been prescribed by the Government for all equipment/tools and empty vehicles seized in connection with illicit extraction. Inclusion of empty vehicles in a Government Order providing compounding of offence cannot by itself sustain an offence described by the Rules. 13. The Senior Government Pleader relied on the judgment of this Court in T.T. Kuriakose v. Sub Inspector of Police [ 2015 (3) KLT 288 ] and argued that in the said judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court has categorised the vehicles seized into three. I have read the judgment in T.T. Kuriakose (supra). In the said judgment, the Court was dealing with the issue of differential levy of compounding fee. This Court found that in many instances, compounding fee has been imposed in a differential manner. In such circumstances, this Court directed the Government to consider laying down of Rules by issuing Government Orders regulating levy of compounding fee in a uniform manner. 14. The Senior Government Pleader, relying on paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the said judgment, pointed out that this Court had found that the vehicles which were not intercepted/found actually carrying illicit minerals are also liable to be seized. The Senior Government Pleader then relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17365 of 2016 to urge the point that a vehicle need not be found actually carrying illicit minerals for being subjected to seizure proceedings. The Senior Government Pleader relied on paragraph 15 of the judgment. Paragraph 15 of the judgment reads as follows:- “15. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17219 of 2016 contends that a reading of a Mahazar would indicate that none of the goods vehicles seized had sand, loaded in them nor was there even an allegation that the JCB seized was excavating sand from the location. Paragraph 15 of the judgment reads as follows:- “15. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17219 of 2016 contends that a reading of a Mahazar would indicate that none of the goods vehicles seized had sand, loaded in them nor was there even an allegation that the JCB seized was excavating sand from the location. The learned Counsel hence would argue that the release of the vehicle would have to be made unconditionally. However, it is to be noticed that the specific prayer made in the writ petition is for compounding the offence. If the petitioner has a contention that there is absolutely no evidence which would incriminate him, the petitioner would be entitled to prosecute the matter and defend the case before the appropriate Court. However, when compounding is sought, it is not for this Court to look into whether there is any evidence and decide on unconditional release of vehicles. The provision of compounding is an alternate mode made available to the accused, alleged with commission of any offence to pay compensation to the State and wriggle out of the penal provisions and prosecution proceedings. If that is to be availed, it has to be under the provisions of the Act and Rules, which provides for compounding. Hence there is no warrant for a different view to be taken in the above case.” 15. The judgment would show that this Court in W.P. (C) No.17219 of 2016 in paragraph 15 was dealing with the claim of the petitioner for compounding the offence. Any observations made by this Court in that context cannot be applied to the facts of these cases. 16. For all the above reasons, I do not find any reason to depart from the view taken in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022. The vehicles/Excavators of the petitioners were seized for the sole reasons that these vehicles were found in a quarry. There is no allegation of any excavation by the JCB involved or attempt of transportation by the Lorries concerned. In view of the above, the seizures affected in all the writ petitions cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The writ petitions are allowed. Vehicles involved in these writ petitions are directed to be released to the petitioners/owners of the vehicles forthwith.