An administrative authority lacks the jurisdiction to unilaterally adjudicate and impose punitive sanctions for statutory violations where the parent legislation expressly assigns the power to take cognizance and determine punishment to a designated judicial forum, rendering any executive deviation from this prescribed procedure ultra vires.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no.775/M dated 15.07.2021 issued by the respondent no.4-District Mining Officer, Palamau to the petitioner, whereby it has been directed to deposit a penalty of Rs. 60,21,98,792/- within two days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter, failing which realization of the same would be done through certificate proceeding.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter no.482/M dated 22.06.2021 the respondent no. 4 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that it had transported the coal mineral for the period from 06.04.2020 to 15.06.2021 from Rajhara Railway Siding, Padwa, Palamau without valid transport challan and without any dealer registration/license. The said show cause was duly replied by the petitioner on 02.07.2021 denying all the allegations. The petitioner challenged the applicability of obtaining a Dealer Licence to it under Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, however the respondent no.4 vide letter no. 775/M dated 15.07.2021 imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,21,98,792/- upon it and further directed it to deposit the abovementioned amount within two days failing which certificate proceeding would be initiated for realization of the same.

3. It is further submitted that as per rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, any person who contravenes any of the provisions of said Rules or buys or sells or stores minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers registration or who transports the minerals except as mentioned in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport challan shall be punishable as per provision made under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules, 2004’) as amended from time to time.

4. It is contended that the respondent no. 4 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned letter in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 54 (5) of the Rules, 2004 inasmuch as the said rule only empowers a competent Court of criminal jurisdiction to impose punishment which may be in the nature of imprisonment or fine or both.

5. It is also argued that the transportation of minerals has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules made thereunder. The term 'dealer' has been defined in Rule 2(i)(f) of the Rules, 2017, according to which ‘dealer’ means any person who is engaged in purchase, storage sale, transportation and processing of mineral (s) anywhere in the State for commercial gain through mineral-based activity and also includes a person carrying out export/import of mineral(s). However, the purchaser utilizing the mineral for personal consumption has been exempted.

6. It is further submitted that as per second part of Rule 4 of Rules, 2017, if a person is holding a valid mining lease granted under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 or 2016 or JMMC Rules, 2004, as amended time to time, framed under the Act, 1957, it has been exempted from registering as a dealer for the same lease and mineral. Since the petitioner is engaged in the mining activity of coal having valid mining lease, it is not required to obtain a dealer registration in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2017, who transp