Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.
Amit - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRR-3442-2019
Decided On : 19-12-2019
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant
The validity and applicability of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2012, and the remedy for the petitioner under Rule 109.
Headnote:
Superdari - Seizure of Vehicle under Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2012 - Rule 104, Rule 109 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Rule 104 and Rule 109 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2012, which provide for the consequences of illegal or unauthorized mining and the appeal process against the actions taken by the Mining Officer. The court emphasized that the Rules are valid and in operation, and the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Director as envisaged under Rule 109. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was seized under Rule 104 of The Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2012. The petitioner filed an application for releasing the vehicle on Superdari, which was rejected by the Illaqa Magistrate, Palwal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Director as envisaged under Rule 109 of the Rules. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of any merits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the seizure of the vehicle under the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2012, and the applicability of Rule 104 and Rule 109 in providing a remedy for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Rules are valid and in operation, and the remedy for the petitioner lies before the Director as envisaged under Rule 109. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as devoid of any merits.
JUDGMENT
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral) - Present petition has been filed against order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palwal whereby the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the vehicle Tractor on Superdari has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case which can been seen from the file would be that vide Annexure P-l, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized under Sub-rule 104 of The Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Rules'). Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, moved an application before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Palwal (Annexure P-5) for releasing the vehicle Tractor on Superdari to the petitioner who is stated to be the owner of the vehicle. Learned Illaqa Magistrate, Palwal vide impugned order has dismissed the application on the ground that as per Rule 104 of the Rules; the consequences of illegal or un-authorised mining have been specifically provided the provisions of Rules 104 which is reproduced as under:-
"104. Consequences of illegal or unauthorised miningAny act of illegal or unauthorised mining shall be liable to the following:
(i) for a first time violation, the said mineral shall be liable to be seized along with the impounding of all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other things used for such unauthorised operation, which may be released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral extracted and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than Ten Thousand rupees;
(ii) for a second time violation, the said mineral shall be liable to be seized along with the impounding of all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other things used for such unauthorised operation for a minimum period of seven days, which may released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral extracted and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees;
(iii) wherever a person is found to the indulging in such offence for the third time or more, the officer concerned shall register an FIR and handover all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other things used for such unauthorised operation to the Police. Any such offence shall entail (a) confiscation of all such tools, equipment, vehicles or any other thing used for such unauthorised operation for a period of minimum thirty days or more, and (b) pecuniary penalty and punishment for the offence as provided under Section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957."
3. Learned Illaqa Magistrate, Palwal has further observed that against the action taken by the Mining Officer (Officer In charge), an appeal lies to the Director under Rule 109 of the Rules is reproduced as under:-
"109. Appeals:- (1) Unless otherwise provided, an appeal against an order passed by the Officer-in-Charge [District Level Environmental Committee] shall lie with the Director;
(2) An appeal against the order passed by the Director shall lie before the Administrative Secretary of the Department;
(3) No order under these rules shall be passed by the competent authority against any person unless he has been issued a show cause and given a reasonable opportunity to make are presentation."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that action has been taken under Section 21 (4) and (4-A) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, an application for seeking Superdari would lie in the Court of the Magistrate under the Act itself and even if there are Rules providing an alternate remedy, that remedy will not apply in view of the proposition of law that Rules can not over ride the provisions of an Act.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
6. Secti
