Point of Law: State Government is duty bound to constitute a special court or such number of special courts in contemplation of provisions of Section 30B in order to deal with offences prescribed under Act, 1957.

JUDGMENT :

(Shaji P. Chaly, J.)

1. The captioned appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 32272, 36137, 35788, 35613, 35601, 34381, 33874, 34680, 33865, 33861, 29973, 34133, 31585, 29847, 33673, 32240, 34952, 29827, 32252, 29586, 33515, 36995, 34485, 20520 and 17394 of 2022 challenging the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30.11.2022 dismissing the writ petitions.

2. The subject issue arises under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘Act, 1957’ for short) vis-a-vis seizure of vehicles belonging to the appellants allegedly for violation of the provisions of the Act, 1957; the primary reliefs sought for in the writ petitions are: (i) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the Excavator/JCB/other vehicles to the petitioners; and (ii) declare that the seizure of the vehicle under the provisions of the Act, 1957 by the Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar are perseillegal, in view of Section 21(4) of the Act, 1957, as he is not an officer specially empowered to seize the vehicle.

3. The pleadings, material and contentions raised in the writ appeals are substantially typical in nature and therefore, separate narration of facts are not required.

4. The vehicles belonging to the appellants were seized by the Revenue Authority concerned, alleging violation of the provisions of the Act, 1957. The case projected by the appellants is that after the seizure of vehicles, they were kept in custody of the respondents depriving the appellants of their valuable property without proceeding further. According to the appellants, they have no other option than to approach the writ court seeking the release of their vehicles, as the respondents cannot further initiate any proceedings under the Act, 1957, for the reason that the confiscating authority under the Act is the court competent to take cognizance upon a complaint filed under Section 22 of the Act, which the State Government does not designate

5. Apparently, during the pendency of the writ petitions, the vehicles were directed to be released on interim custody by imposing appropriate conditions; and we are informed that the vehicles were released to the appellants, accordingly.

6. The paramount contention raised by the appellants is that the seizure effected under Section 21(4) of the Act, 1957 is on the basis of the commission or violation of offences under Sections 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Act, 1957. It is submitted that under the unamended Act, 1957, the punishment prescribed was imprisonment for two years and fine, and the procedure for the disposal of the property seized is under Section 21(4A) of the Act, which stipulates that it can be confiscated by the order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-Section (1) of the said provision. Therefore, according to the appellants as the law originally stood, under the provisions of Section 26(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every Judicial Magistrate of First Class was competent to take cognizance of the offence on the cases instituted under the Act, 1957, and there was no confusion as regarding the procedure under the unamended provisions of the Act 1957.

7. It is further pointed out that the State of Kerala had notified the officers who are empowered to file a complaint before the Magistrates under Section 22 of the Act, 1957. The paramount contention of the appellants is that the Act, 1957 had undergone an amendment in the year 2015, whereby Sections 30B and 30C have been incorporated, which provides for the constitution of Special courts, and that the special courts constituted shall be presided over by a District and Sessions Judge. The said provision is incorporated under the Act, 1957 on and with effect from 12.01.2015, which was published in the gazette on 27.03.2015.

8. The grievance is that even though the said pr