Penalties for illegal mining activities must strictly adhere to statutory provisions; unauthorized actions are invalid, and confiscations require court orders based on formal complaints.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. We are not unmindful nor oblivion of the rampant illegal mining activities across the country and whenever any action is taken by the authorities, approach is made to the Court assailing their actions on the perceived arbitrariness, non-adherence of the provisions of law and above all, the exercise of powers beyond the conferment under the statutory provisions.

2. A public spirited person highlighted such issues by filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the apex Court took serious note of the same and delivered a judgment on 2^nd August, 2017 in Common Cause v. Union of India , (2017) 9 SCC 499 . An argument was advanced before the said Constitution Bench at the behest of the mining operators that illegal mining cannot be presumed nor can be said in this regard, if the mining activities are within the geographical limits of a mining lease area.

3. The word "any land" appearing under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, ‘the Act’) came up for consideration before the Bench and the same has been interpreted in unequivocal words that the violation of any terms and conditions of the provisions of law or the mining plan, even within the leased area, comes within the ambit of said expressions. It leads to an inescapable conclusion that Section 21(5) of the said Act is not only restricted to illegal mining activities beyond the peripheral of the leased area but also engulfed within itself any violation within the leased area.

4. The present case is one of the examples where the authorities found not only the quarry activities having undertaken by the petitioner outside the quarry limits/area but also the construction of a road across the river impeding the natural flow of the water. Further, two excavators were found stationed outside the quarry lease area, which the authorities presumed to have been employed for quarrying beyond the leased area.

5. Resultantly, a show cause was issued upon the petitioner which was duly replied to. The petitioner tacitly admitted the allegations made in the said show cause except that mere positioning of two excavators outside the leased area does not tantamount to the illegal quarry activities as those were kept for safety purposes. So far as the construction of road is concerned, the petitioner took a stand that since the villagers were protesting the vehicular movements from the road and preventing the petitioner to load and transport sand, for which the permission has been granted, the temporary road was constructed for an easy access to the leased area and after receipt of the said notice, the same has been abandoned.

6. The authorities, after taking into account such stand taken by the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the same is not satisfactory and proceeded to impose penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) under Rule 33(17) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (in short, ‘the Rules’) and also imposed the royalty, the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the environmental compensation to the tune of Rs.31,508/- (rupees thirty one thousand five hundred eight). It further appears from the said order that the petitioner was directed to submit the tax invoices/bills of the seized two excavators for taking further action towards the realization of the penalty in terms of a Notification No.9238/SM, Bhubaneswar, dated 25.10.2024.

7. The petitioner has challenged the said order primarily on the g