Point of law:
In relation to a permit referred to in sub-section (9) of section 88, the powers exercisable under subsection (1) (other than the power to cancel a permit) by the transport authority which granted the permit, may be exercised by any transport authority and any authority or persons to whom power in this behalf has been delegated under sub-section (5) of section 68, as if the said permit was a permit granted by any such authority or persons.

ORDER :

1. Since the controversy involved in this batch of criminal misc. petitions is similar, therefore, the same are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners, in these criminal misc. petitions, have prayed for release of their vehicles, namely, tractors and trolleys, which have been seized by the concerned Police Station. The Registration Certificates of their vehicles have also been seized. The seizure has been effected on account of the tractor along with trolley being found to be used for allegedly committing offences under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1957”) and under Section 379 IPC for illegal transportation of “Bajri”. In other cases, the illegal transportation is being found of other minerals without obtaining royalty receipt, ravanas, transit pass etc. The details of the vehicles are as under:-

3. The trial Court has rejected the applications moved under Section 457 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners observing that there is a great loss of revenue caused by illegal transportation of minerals by the tractors along with trolleys and are likely to be used for recurrence of the illegal activity. It has also been noticed that the amount of penalty for compounding the offence under the Act of 1957 has also not been deposited and some of the trolleys are found to be unregistered.

4. Taking into consideration, the flurry of cases coming to this Court with regard to the aforesaid aspect, this Court vide order dated 15.1.2020 observed as under:

“In M/s. Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3428 after examining the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held as under:-

“22. The question still remains as to whether the taxation authority was right in categorizing tractor-trailer as a separate assessable entity and whether that authority was right in calling upon the appellant to obtain permit under Section 66 of the M.V. Act, 1988.”

Thus, a tractor alongwith the trolley (trailer) would constitute goods carriage and would thus require the permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1988’). However, it is noticed that the tractors which are being seized alongwith the trolleys carrying Bajri, do not have permit under Section 66 of the Act of 1988 and the Transport Department is not carrying out regular vigil and are not seizing such goods carriage plying on roads.

Let the Commissioner, Transport Department alongwith the Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur be present in the court detailing their proposed plan to curve such activity as above. The Director, Mines shall also appear to explain as to what steps have been taken for stopping Bajri mining in the State of Rajasthan. It would also be informed to the court as to what conditions have been laid down for issuing commercial licenses to