S. Vimala, J.

The appellants herein are the respondents before the writ Court.

2. The respondent in the writ appeal, as the petitioner, filed Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in Writ Petition No.11421 of 2011 seeking to set-aside the impugned order, dated 14.08.2009, by which the writ petitioner was directed to remit penalty amount of Rs. 10,24,486/- in the Government Account for the illicit transportation of black granite at Perumbakkam Village, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District and to direct the respondents in the writ petition to return/release the lorry bearing Registration No.TN20-X-7893.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN20-X-7893. On 14.04.2008, Nedumaran, the Manager of M/s.Enterprising Enterprises, a company which is carrying on business in quarrying of granites at Kunnam Village, hired the vehicle through the driver for the purpose of transportation of black granite to SBS Granites, Poonamallee. The petitioner was informed that the permit will be handed over to the driver at Dindivanam. While the lorry was transporting black granites, the vehicle was seized by the Tahsildar, Villupuram District, on an allegation that there was a transportation of black granites without a valid permit.

3.1. Even though the District Collector called the petitioner for enquiry on 02.06.2008, there was no enquiry, but he was threatened to put his signature in blank papers. On 15.07.2008, a communication was sent to the petitioner asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,24,486/- as penalty.

3.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.19992 of 2008 seeking to release the lorry. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2008. The petitioner filed appeal dated 15.09.2008 before the Director of Geology and Mining. Simultaneously, the writ petitioner also filed W.P.No.27880 of 2008 seeking direction to the Director, Geology and Mining, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. There was a direction to the first respondent therein to dispose of the Appeal within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the first respondent therein dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay.

3.3. Again appeal was preferred to the third respondent therein, namely, the Principal Secretary. In the meanwhile, the District Collector has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,24,486/-. Under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. It is contended that the imposition of penalty is without application of mind and without appreciation of records. There is no power to the authority concerned to impose penalty on the owner of the vehicle who had transported the black granite innocently without knowing that it was a serious irregularity. Relying upon the decision (Assistant Forest Conservator Vs. Sharad RamChandra Kale, (1998) AIR SC 2927) it is contended that when the authorities failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest product in contravention of the provisions of the Forest Act, the order of confiscation is liable to be set-aside.

4.1. It is the case of the authorities that the lorry owner has accepted that he committed the offence and according to the statement of the owner, the lorry was engaged by one Arul and the permit would be given to the driver on the way during the course of transportation of granite.

4.2. Imposition of penalty has been done invoking the provisions of Section 4 (1A) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (in short "the Act") and Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (in short "the Rules").

4.3. Section 4 (1A) of the Act reads thus:-

"Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease.

4. (1) [No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, exce