Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
M/s. K.C. Stone Crushing Co & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 23190 of 2020, 36757 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2021
ILLEGAL MINING - Transportation of mineral in excess of what is authorized as per Transit Pass - Whether in such case, the person transporting the same can be proceeded under Rule 104 of Mining Rules 2012 which basically deals with violation regarding mining and not strictly with incorrect weighment or transportation? - Whether a vehicle seized while carrying mineral illegally can be detained for an unreasonable period or indefinitely upon nonpayment of the imposed penalty, without initiating proceedings either for prosecuting the offender or for confiscating the vehicle in question? - Whether release of vehicles on "superdari" in such cases is absolutely barred? - Held, yes - The excess mineral being transported, has to be construed as 'illegally obtained' by virtue of Rule 98(6), and thus would be dealt with under provisions of Rule 104 and not Rule 102. - The seizure order dated 1.3.2020(Annexure P-6) in CRM-M23190-2020 can not be said to be suffering from any infirmity on said count. - The respondent authorities, without obtaining an order of confiscation from the Court, cannot be permitted to detain a seized vehicle indefinitely upon refusal of the owner to pay compounding fee. - The Mining Rules 2012, however, do not contain any such provision from which it could be inferred that jurisdiction of Courts is ousted or that there is any specific bar against release of a vehicle on "superdari". - The bar as referred to in order dated 26.7.2019 as modified in order dated 19.2.2020(Annexure R-1) thus, can only be relatable to a situation when the Court is not seized of the matter in any manner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was intercepted by Mining Officer while transporting "Rori"(tiny pieces of stones or gravel) without any document justifying possession and transportation of the aforesaid mineral. The truck in question was seized by the Mining Officer, vide order dated 1.3.2020(Annexure P-6) in terms of provisions of Rule 104 of The Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules 2012 (hereinafter called as the Mining Rules 2012). The petitioner, instead of paying the penalty as imposed, approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-12123-2020 wherein it was inter-alia contended that he cannot be made to pay an amount to the tune of 50% of the value of the truck as the National Green Tribunal, vide order dated 19.2.2020 had revised the said rates which would be applicable to the case of the petitioner since his truck was seized after 19.2.2020. This Court, vide order dated 11.5.2020 (Annexure P-8), disposed of the petition while directing the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana to look into the matter and to dispose of a representation moved by the petitioner within 10 days. The representation moved by the petitioner was decided by the Director vide order dated 9.6.2020(Annexure P-10). During the course of said proceedings the petitioner hadproduced a Transit Pass i.e. e-Ravaana dated 1.3.2020 pertaining to transportation of 17 M.T. of "Rori". However since the truck in question was found to be carrying 23 M.T. of "Rori" as against the bill of 17 M.T., the Director held that transporting excess "Rori" would amount to illegal transportation of the excess mineral and thus the truck, in any case, was liable to be seized. The Director, however ordered that the truck could be got released by paying the penalty under the 2012 Mining Rules 2012 and the compensation amount as per the latest order dated 19.2.2020 passed by NGT. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 9.6.2020 before Appellate Authority but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2020(Annexure P-1), which has been challenged by way of filing instant petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. In a case of transportation of mineral in excess of what is authorized as per Transit Pass, the person transporting the same can be proceeded under Rule 104 of Mining Rules 2012 which basically deals with violation regarding mining and not strictly with incorrect weighment or transportation. 2. A vehicle seized while carrying mineral illegally can be detained for an unreasonable period or indefinitely upon nonpayment of the imposed penalty, without initiating proceedings either for prosecuting the offender or for confiscating the vehicle in question. 3. Release of vehicles on "superdari" in such cases is absolutely barred.
Issues: 1. Whether in a case of transportation of mineral in excess of what is authorized as per Transit Pass, the person transporting the same can be proceeded under Rule 104 of Mining Rules 2012 which basically deals with violation regarding mining and not strictly with incorrect weighment or transportation? 2. Whether a vehicle seized while carrying mineral illegally can be detained for an unreasonable period or indefinitely upon nonpayment of the imposed penalty, without initiating proceedings either for prosecuting the offender or for confiscating the vehicle in question? 3. Whether release of vehicles on "superdari" in such cases is absolutely barred?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The excess mineral being transported, has to be construed as 'illegally obtained' by virtue of Rule 98(6), and thus would be dealt with under provisions of Rule 104 and not Rule 102. 2. The respondent authorities, without obtaining an order of confiscation from the Court, cannot be permitted to detain a seized vehicle indefinitely upon refusal of the owner to pay compounding fee. 3. The Mining Rules 2012, however, do not contain any such provision from which it could be inferred that jurisdiction of Courts is ousted or that there is any specific bar against release of a vehicle on "superdari". 4. The bar as referred to in order dated 26.7.2019 as modified in order dated 19.2.2020(Annexure R-1) thus, can only be relatable to a situation when the Court is not seized of the matter in any manner.
Final Decision: Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid directions. However before parting with the judgement, this Court places on record its appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by both the learned counsel and also by Shri Parvesh Sharma, State Mining Engineer and Shri R.S. Thakran, Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Haryana.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - Both the above-mentioned petitions are being taken up together, being identical on facts, wherein common questions of law are being raised.
2. For the sake of brevity, facts of only one of these cases are being noticed i.e. of M/s. KC Stone Crushing Company's case, which may be stated chronologically as follows:
| 1.3.2020: | A truck bearing registration no. HR-55-R-8854 was intercepted by Mining Officer in the area of Gurugram, while the same was carrying "Rori"(tiny pieces of stones or gravel). Since the driver could not produce any document justifying possession and transportation of the aforesaid mineral, the truck in question was seized by the Mining Officer, vide order dated 1.3.2020(Annexure P-6) in terms of provisions of Rule 104 of The Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules 2012 (hereinafter called as the Mining Rules 2012). The petitioner was asked to pay an amount equal to 50% of the showroom value of the truck in question for its release in accordance with order dated 5.4.2019 passed in OA No. 360/2015 by National Green Tribunal, New Delhi(hereinafter refered to as NGT). |
| 11.5.2020: | The petitioner, instead of paying the penalty as imposed, approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-12123-2020 wherein it was inter-alia contended that he cannot be made to pay an amount to the tune of 50% of the value of the truck as the National Green Tribunal, vide order dated 19.2.2020 had revised the said rates which would be applicable to the case of the petitioner since his truck was seized after 19.2.2020. This Court, vide order dated 11.5.2020 (Annexure P-8), disposed of the petition while directing the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana to look into the matter and to dispose of a representation moved by the petitioner within 10 days. |
| 9.6.2020: | The representation moved by the petitioner was decided by the Director vide order dated 9.6.2020(Annexure P-10). During the course of said proceedings the petitioner hadproduced a Transit Pass i.e. e-Ravaana dated 1.3.2020 pertaining to transportation of 17 M.T. of "Rori". However since the truck in question was found to be carrying 23 M.T. of "Rori" as against the bill of 17 M.T., the Director held that transporting excess "Rori" would amount to illegal transportation of the excess mineral and thus the truck, in any case, was liable to be seized. The Director, however ordered that the truck could be got released by paying the penalty under the 2012 Mining Rules 2012 and the compensation amount as per the latest order dated 19.2.2020 passed by NGT. |
| 24.7.2020: | The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 9.6.2020 before Appellate Authority but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2020(Annexure P-1), which has been challenged by way of filing instant petition. |
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has broadly made the following submissions:
(i) that infact it is not a case of illegal mining as the transit-pass i.e. 'eRavaana' was produced before the authorities by the owner subsequently which is not disputed. It has been submitted that the respondent authorities upon being shown the 'e-ravaana' have later built up a new case of excess loading of mineral though there was no such mention in the Seizure Order dated 1.3.2020(Annexure P-6);
(ii) that the amount sought to be realised as penalty from the petitioner is extremely on the higher side which the petitioner is unable to pay and that he can not be forced to compound the matter so as to deprive him an opportunity to contest the allegations as he does have a very good c
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
