SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1852

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, M. DHANDAPANI, K. MURALI SHANKAR, JJ.
S. Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector Kokkirakulam Tirunelveli & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 14341 of 2022 & W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 10246, 10247, 10249, 10251, 21098 of 2022
Decided On : 13-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Vallinayagam, SC, S. PalaniVelayutham, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R4 & R6 to R8, Veerakathiravan, AAG Assisted by P. Thilak Kumar, R5, N.Dilipkumar, R5, N. Dilipkumar, Advocates. For the Amicus Curiae:B. Vijay, Advocate, N. Ananthapadmanabhan, Senior counsel.

Police personnel can act as authorised officers to seize vehicles and file complaints under the MMDR Act; they can also compound offences, subject to environmental law compliance.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 21(4), 22 and 23-A - Writ Petition for mandamus to allow resumption of business operations and the return of vehicles seized by police - The Full Bench addressed the legal authority of police personnel as 'authorised officer' to seize vehicles and initiate private complaints under the Act. It was determined that police, besides revenue officials, can seize vehicles. The Court noted the importance of categorizing officers properly to prevent legal duplicity and maintain clarity on compounding offences. Findings also clarified the distinction between MD workers and police in compounding penalties. Resultantly, police officers are authorized to compound offences but must follow the law regarding seizure and complaint filing. (Paras 200, 201, 202)

(B) Compounding of Offences - The court elaborated that powers to compound offences under Section 23-A of the MMDR Act are vested in persons authorized under Section 22, and this does not extend to the Special Court. The procedure mandates obtaining expert assessment on mineral values for compounding fees, evidencing a blend of legal and environmental considerations. (Paras 22, 23, 36)

Table of Content
1. writ petition for mandamus regarding business operations. (Para 1)
2. environmental damage due to illegal mining prompts legal framework. (Para 2 , 3)
3. writ petition seeks return of seized vehicles following regulations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
4. clarification petition sought due to empowerment conflicts. (Para 7)
5. discrepancy about authorized officer for vehicle seizure. (Para 12)
6. police's authorisation and role in certifying compliance with legal provisions. (Para 19 , 20 , 22)
7. court emphasizes role of police in environmental law enforcement. (Para 60)
8. joint consideration of offences under both ipc and mmdr act is necessary. (Para 72 , 86)

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court for issuance of mandamus, to direct the respondents, more particularly the first respondent permitting the petitioner to continue his business of crusher operation in the property bearing Survey Nos.844, 848 and 849/2 in the name of Venkateswara Crusher at Door No.815 Adamithipankuam, Tharuvai Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the petitioner to take back his vehicles as parked in his Patta land at Thuruvai Village, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and also direct the5th respondent to permit the petitioner to operate Bank, Overdue Account bearing Account No. 152700050900047 with Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Palayamkottai Branch near St. John College, Tirunelveli District and further direct the respondents to break open the seal of the petitioner''s chamber and crusher office situated at Palayamkottai in the main road leading to Nagercoil from Tirunelveli and also further permit to take back all the vehicles such as Tractor, Tipper Lorry, Torus Lorry, Kittachi, JCB, Pockline, Bench Lorry, Motorcycle, Pickup Vehicle, TATA Pickup, Mahindra Pickup, Kobelco 380 (for removing mud) and two wheelers forthwith.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

The damage caused to the environment by rampant mining, without following the legal safeguards has led to the enactment of various laws by the Central and State Governments have built in checks and balances to do away with illicit mining. Inspite of the same, many a time, the provisions in the enactments are put to test before the Courts, viz., the High Courts and the Supreme Court as also the Green Tribunal and the judicial arm had extended to safeguard the environment. Inspite of the diligent efforts taken by all the pillars of the democracy, putting a stop to the onslaught of illicit mining is getting to be an arduous task, thereby, many agencies of the State Government are pressed into service to stop illicit mining with the Government conferring power on the said agencies with regard to seizure, launching prosecution and compounding of offences. In the aftermath of the above, the present Full Bench has been constituted upon the orders of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, which was upon a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court, raising certain queries with regard to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder and also the various Government Orders, which have been issued on the basis of the aforesaid Act and the Rules.

2. Before detailing the reasons which prevailed upon the Division Bench to refer the matter to the Full Bench, the points of reference, as have been formulated and placed before this Court for an authoritative answer, are as under :-

“(a) Whether a police personnel can be brought within the ambit of "authorised officer empowered" under Sections 21 (4), 22 and 23-A of the Act?

(b) If the police officer cannot be brought within the fold of an authorised officer and hence he does not have the power to seize the vehicles/materials, what will be the effect of such seizure that had taken place after G.O.Ms. No. 170, dated 05.08.2020 was issued?

(c) Whether the police officer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top