Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan, JJ.
Mishra Wine – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 3103, 3111, 3113 of 2022
Decided On : 04-03-2024
(A) Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 29 - Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 - Rule 13 - Penalty imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortage of sand - Court held that no statutory provision allows for imposing penalty being twice the value of sand for mere discrepancies in stock - Orders imposing penalty quashed. (Paras 24, 26)
(B) Jurisdiction of Respondent - The Respondent failed to provide any enabling rules for imposing penalty on stockyard dealers for alleged storage discrepancies, leading to the conclusion that the penalty orders were unsupported by law. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners, registered stockyard dealers, were penalized for alleged shortages of sand in their stockyards without any statutory basis for such penalties, despite having procured the sand legally and paid the requisite royalties.
Findings of Court:
The penalty orders were quashed as they lacked statutory support, and the Petitioners were entitled to generate transport challans for the sand in their stockyards.
Issues: Whether a penalty can be imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand without a statutory basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the imposition of penalties must be grounded in statutory provisions, which were absent in this case, thus rendering the penalties invalid.
Result: Writ applications allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
1. Since all these writ applications involve common question of facts and issues and with the consent of the parties were heard together and accordingly all are being disposed of by this common judgment. Prayers made in respective writ petitions are enumerated herein-under:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside Letter No. 689/M dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent No. 3-District Mining Officer, Deoghar, wherein without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and in utter contravention of the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and/or Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules 2017, the Petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,10,180/- being the amount towards penalty equivalent to twice the value of sand allegedly found less in the stockyard of the Petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, declaring that the action of the Respondent-authorities in demanding twice the value of mineral i.e. sand towards penalty from the Petitioner is beyond the scope of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 read with The Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2017.
W.P. (C) No. 3111 of 2022
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside Letter No. 690/M dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent No. 3 - District Mining Officer, Deoghar, wherein without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and in utter contravention of the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 and/or the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2017, the Petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 11,47,446/- being the amount towards penalty equivalent to twice the value of sand allegedly found less in the stockyard of the Petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the Respondent authorities in demanding twice the value of mineral i.e. sand towards penalty from the Petitioner due to alleged shortage of stock of sand in the stockyard of the Petitioner is beyond the scope of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 read with The Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2017.
W.P. (C) No. 3113 of 2022
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside Letter No. 688/M dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure-6) issued by Respondent No. 3 - District Mining Officer, Deoghar, wherein without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and in utter contravention of the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 and/or the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2017, the Petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 12,43,460/- being the amount towards penalty equivalent to twice the value of sand allegedly found less in the stockyard of the Petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the Respondent authorities in demanding twice the value of mineral i.e. sand towards penalty from the Petitioner due to alleged shortage of stock of sand in the stockyard of the Petitioner is beyond the scope of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 read with The Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2017.
2. Since the facts involved in the above three writ petitions are identical, for the sake of brevity, facts pertaining to W.P. (C) No. 3103 of 2022 (M/s. Mishra Wine v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) are noted in this Judgment.
3. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner was granted registration as a ‘D
Penalty cannot be imposed on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand without statutory provisions supporting such action.
Penalties on stockyard dealers for alleged shortages of sand must be explicitly provided for in law; arbitrary imposition of penalties without statutory backing is impermissible.
Point of law: The Licensee who contravenes the provisions of these rules deals with storing, stocking and transportation of minerals, either in raw form and / or subjected the mineral/s to beneficia....
FIRs against a mineral concessionaire were quashed due to lack of verification and failure to establish cognizable offences, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures in prosecution.
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
The court validated the authority of the state to impose penalties for unauthorized quarrying, establishing compliance with statutory rules as per the MMDR Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
