IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Unais, Son of Hamsa and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The District Collector, Palakkad, Kenathuparambu, Kunathurmedu, Palakkad District, PIN – 678013 and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos.23, 92, 113, 189 and 785 of 2023
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the seizure of their Tipper Lorries/Excavators, claiming that the vehicles were not involved in any illegal mining activities.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seizure of the vehicles was not legally sustainable as they were not found carrying or transporting illicit minerals.Ratio Decidendi:
Mere presence of vehicles in a quarry does not constitute an offense unless they are found carrying minerals without Mineral Transit Passes. Actual loading of lorries or excavation of minerals is not necessary to seize a vehicle/Excavator. Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the release of the seized vehicles to the petitioners/owners.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. 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:-
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 t
AI
Independent vehicle owners cannot be liable for illegal quarry operations they are not connected with.
Authorities must comply with statutory procedures following vehicle seizure under mining laws to ensure prompt decision-making for prosecution or release.
The main legal point established is the need for parity in the treatment of wrongdoers and the imposition of conditions for the release of vehicles to prevent illegal mining.
The court permits the petitioner to seek compounding of an offense under specific mining regulations.
Vehicles seized under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act are not liable for confiscation if they are found to be empty at the time of seizure, in accordance with the principles l....
The court upholds the law regarding the compoundable nature of offenses in response to vehicle seizure under mineral regulations.
Compliance with the law is necessary for compounding offenses related to mineral regulations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.