The discretionary nature of compounding offences under Section 23-A of the Act and the entitlement of the State Government or authorized officer to recover seized mineral or its price.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, claims to have established a stone crusher under the name of M/s Krishna Stone Crusher at Sangani, Poonch Road Akhnoor. He is aggrieved and has challenged the order of respondent No. 3 bearing No. DMO/2/seizure/20-21/2394-95, dated 21.12.2020, whereby machinery and minor minerals i.e. crushed bajri approx. 15000 mt, c/dust 1000 mt, Nullah Muck 200 mt and bed mix 5000 mt has been seized and handed over on Supurdnama to Sub Inspector Rashpal Sharma of Police Station, Akhnoor. The petitioner has also assailed the order of respondent No. 2 dated 18.01.2021 passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent No. 3. The order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 08.03.2021 in the second appeal filed by the petitioner is also under challenged in this petition. Two orders passed by respondent No. 2 on 19th April, 2021 and 27th May, 2021 are also subject matter of challenge in this petition.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders, it is necessary to notice material facts.

3. On 21.12.2020, the business premises of the petitioner were raided by respondent No. 3 and found that the petitioner had without lawful authority and in contravention to The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter “the Act” for short) had raised minor minerals of different quantity and was using the machinery contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, vide seizure memo dated 21.12.2020, respondent No. 3 seized the machinery as well as minor minerals unlawfully raised by the petitioner and handed over the same on spurdnama of Sub-Inspector Rashpal Sharma of Police Station, Akhnoor.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before respondent No. 2. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 18.01.2021 being devoid of any merit. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 by way of second appeal, which was partially accepted and respondent No. 2 was directed to do fair assessment of the seized minor minerals under Rules and expedite the matter in light of the repeal of , 2017 (34) JK STATUTES 36-JK [Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957--Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Exploitation And Processing Rules, 2017] SRO 302 and notification of new Rules vide 2021 (49) JK STATUTES 199-JK [Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957--Jammu and Kashmir Stone Crushers/Hot and Wet Mixing Plants Regulation Rules, 2021], S.O. 60 of 2021. On remand, the matter came up for consideration before respondent No. 2, who, vide impugned order dated 19.04.2021, constituted a Committee of four officers to carry out spot inspection and assessment of quantity of minor minerals lying at the site of crusher in the presence of the petitioner and District Mineral Officer. The Committee was also called upon to verify the documents as also to certify whether the seized material was freshly extracted/crushed. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 without waiting for the report of the Committee constituted by him and acting upon the report of District Mineral Officer dated 23.05.2021, requested the Joint Director, Geology and Mining Department to impose penalty on the petitioner as per seizure memo issued on 21.12.2020 at an earliest.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved of the manner in which the respondents have addressed his grievance and has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No. 3, who vide order dated 21.12.2020 effected seizure, could not have directed the petitioner to remain present before the Joint Director, Geology and Mining Department, Jammu on 22.12.2020 for compounding of the penalty when there was no penalty imposed at that time. It is argued that the appeals filed by the petitioner before respondent Nos. 2 and 1, too, were decided by the