Pawan Meena vs Department of Mineral Resource

In the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing the order dated 28.03.2018 passed

by respondent No.2 (Appellate Authority) and order dated 01.01.2018 passed by the Collector, Dewas on the ground that as per Rule 53 of M.P.

Minor Mineral Rules,1996, in case, if petitioner fails to pay compounding fees then only his vehicle would be confiscated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards order dated 18.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.13090/2018 (Manoj Vishnoi vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh) and prayed that similar order be passed in the present case. The order dated 18.07.2018 reads as under:

“Heard.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20/02/2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by

the Appellate Authority (Director of Geology and Mining, Government of M.P.) and order of Collector dated 23/08/2017 (Annexure P/4) by which the

learned Authority initiated the proceedings under Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and passed an order for confiscation of the vehicle.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Rule 53 sub-Rule 6 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, which was amended on

18.5.2017 and submitted that during pendency of the appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining, he exercised his right to pay the penalty in lieu

of confiscation as per Clause (a) of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but the learned Authority, though admitted the aforesaid

fact but dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Collector on 23/08/2017. He further submitted that if there was first violation then

at the most the Competent Authority may ask for 25 times of royalty of unlawfully excavated / transported minerals or rupees 10,000/-whichever is

more.

In the present case on 14/07/2017, when petitioner was transporting the Sand in his Tractor bearing registration No.MP 41 AB 6897 and Tractor -

Trolley bearing registration No.MP 41 AB 0479 his vehicles were intercepted and during inspection, it was found that he is not having any valid transit

pass to transport the Sand.

Considering the aforesaid, after issuing show cause notice and after granting opportunity to the petitioner, order dated 23/08/2017 has been passed

by the Collector, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he is ready to pay compounding charges/penalty as per Rule 53(6)(a)

of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and submitted that impugned orders be set aside and matter be remitted to the Collector, Dewas for taking

appropriate action, in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to the order dated 03/05/2018

passed by this Court in the case of Arjun Singh Versus Mineral Resources Department and others, relevant part of the order reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 26.02.2018 (Shivshankar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others)

passed in M.P.No.874/2018 and submitted that in view of the Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rulesâ€)

the request of the petitioner for compounding has to be considered by the learned authorities and in case if petitioner in respect of first time

contravention, penalty of minimum 30 times of a royalty of illegal extracted/transported minerals shall be imposed but it shall not be less than Rs.

10,000/-. The said reads as under:

“ The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the Collector on 18.09.2017, whereby the request of the petitioner for compounding

was not considered and the vehicle was confiscated. An appeal against the said order was dismissed on 15.01.2018.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized on the ground that it is involved in illegal extraction of minor

mineral, but in the case of first default, only penalty can be imposed in terms of Rule 53 of the M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to

asâ€​Rules) and confiscation of the vehicle is not contemplated in terms of the said Rule

Mr. Amit Seth, learned counsel for the State, refers to the stand filed in the return that the request for compounding to be accepted or not is the

discretion of the authority. Though the authority was obliged to assign reasons for exercising the discretion, but no such reason has been assigned in

the order passed on 18.09.2017.

In view of Rule 53 of the Rules, the request of the petitioner for compounding has not been considered admittedly by the Collector in the order passed.

Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Collector and by the Commissioner in appeal, and direct the Collector to pass fresh orders after

considering the request of the petitioner for compounding the offence.

Necessary orders be passed within two weeks, as the vehicle is in custody of the State for the last more than six months.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.â€​

On due consideration of the aforesaid so also amended provision of 53(1) Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral

Rules, 1996, we quash the orders passed by Collector and Director, Geology & Mining Department and direct the Collector to pass fresh orders after

considering the request of the petitioner for compounding the offence.

Necessary orders be passed within two weeks, as the vehicle is in custody since 18.07.2017.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.â€​

Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability

of the writ petition on the ground that statutory remedy of revision is provided before the State Government under Rule 58 of M.P. Minor Mineral

Rules, 1996 and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

In the present case, the order has been passed in violation of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and, therefore, there is no

bar in entertaining the writ petition. He further submitted that in identical matter, the Division Bench of Principal Seat of this Court affirmed the order

and dismissed the writ petition.

In reply, Shri Ritesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in subsequent matters while entertaining the writ petition, an interim

order has been passed directing the respondents to release the vehicle by which compounding was permitted.

On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the amended provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, we quash the impugned

orders dated 20/02/2018 and 23/08/2017 and direct the Collector to pass fresh order after considering the request of petitioner for compounding the

offence within a period of thirty days (30 days) from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and disposed of.â€​

On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the amended provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, we quash the impugned orders

dated 28.03.2018 and 01.01.2018 and direct the Collector to pass fresh order after considering the request of petitioner for compounding the offence

within a period of thirty days (30 days) from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.