1. Heard.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.2.2018 (Annexure-P-1) passed by the Appellate Authority (Director of Geology and Mining, Government of M.P.) and order of Collector, Dewas dated 13.7.2017 (Annexure-P-2) by which the learned Authority initiated the proceedings under section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and passed an order for confiscation of the vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to rule 53 sub-rule 6 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, which was amended on 18.5.2017 and submitted that during pendency of the appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining, he exercised his right to pay the penalty in lieu of confiscation as per Clause (a) of sub-rule 6 of rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but the learned Authority, though admitted the aforesaid fact but dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Collector on 13.7.2017. He further submitted that if there was first violation then at the most the Competent Authority may ask for 25 times of royalty of unlawfully excavated / transported minerals or Rupees 10,000/- whichever is more.

4. In the present case on 24.6.2017, when petitioner was transporting the Sand in his Tractor – Trolley bearing registration No. MP-41-AB-2357, his vehicle was intercepted and during inspection, it was found that he is not having any valid transit pass to transport the Sand.

5. Considering the aforesaid, after issuing show cause notice and after granting opportunity to the petitioner, order dated 13.7.2017 has been passed by the Collector, which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

6. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is ready to pay compounding charges/penalty as per rule 53(6)(a) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and submitted that impugned orders be set aside and matter be remitted to the Collector, Dewas for taking appropriate action, in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to the order dated 3.5.2018 passed by this Court in the case of Arjun Singh Versus Mineral Resources Department and others, relevant part of the order reads as under :

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 26.2.2018 (Shivshankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) passed in M.P.No. 874/2018 and submitted that in view of the rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) the request of the petitioner for compounding has to be considered by the learned authorities and in case if petitioner in respect of first time contravention, penalty of minimum 30 times of a royalty of illegal extracted/transported minerals shall be imposed but it shall not be less than Rs. 10,000/-. The said reads as under :

“ The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the Collector on 18.9.2017, whereby the request of the petitioner for compounding was not considered and the vehicle was confiscated. An appeal against the said order was dismissed on 15.1.2018.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized on the ground that it is involved in illegal extraction of minor mineral, but in the case of first default, only penalty can be imposed in terms of rule 53 of the M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as” rules) and confiscation of the vehicle is not contemplated in terms of the said rule.

Mr. Amit Seth, learned counsel for the State, refers to the stand filed in the return that the request for compounding to be accepted or not is the discretion of the authority. Though the authority was obliged to assign reasons for exercising the discretion, but no such reason has been assigned in the order passed on 18.9.2017.

In view of Rule 53 of the rules, the request of the petitioner for compounding has not been considered admittedly