Back
(HIGH COURT-FULL BENCH)
Hemant Gupta, CJ, Vijay Kumar Shukla and Sanjay Dwivedi, JJ.
Nitesh Rathore and another v. State of M.P. and others
Miscellaneous Petitions No. 1850 of 2018, 1852 of 2018, 1853 of 2018, 1985 of 2018, 1987 of 2018, 2012 of 2018, 2013 of 2018, 2017 of 2018, 2020 of 2018, 2022 of 2018, 2030 of 2018, 2165 of 2018, 2408 of 2018, 2817 of 2018, 2819 of 2018, 2820 of 2018, 2821 of 2018, 2856 of 2018, 2941 of 2018, 3223 of 2018, 3304 of 2018 and 3305 of 2018 with Writ Petitions No. 8970 of 2018, 14225 of 2018 and 14230 of 2018 (Jabalpur); Decided on 20.9.2018
(1) Interpretation of Statutes -- provisions of two statutes by same Legislature have to be harmoniously read -- if harmonious reading not permissible -- later Statute will amount to deemed repeal of earlier law. AIR 1963 SC 1561 and (1990)4 SCC 406 followed. [Para 10
(2) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- R.53 (as substituted on 18.5.2017) -- M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S.247(7) (as amended on 30.12.2011) -- incidence of penalty in both provisions is different. [Para 16
(3) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- R. 53(1) -- complete discretion to forfeit in one case and to impose penalty in another case -- would suffer from vice of arbitrariness -- forfeiture can be resorted to only when penalty is not paid. (1973)3 SCC 428, (1984)4 SCC 612 and (2009)16 SCC 208 followed. [Para 33
(4) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R.53 (as substituted on 18.5.2017) -- M. P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 -- R. 18(5) -- Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 -- S.15 r/w 23C -- M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S.247(7) (as amended on 30.12.2011) -- R.53 of Rules, 1996 as amended on 18.5.2017 is valid -- Rules, 1996 and Rules, 2006 neither contradict S.247 (7) of Code, 1959 nor suffer from any other vice of illegality -- prosecution under Rules, 2006 is in addition to penalty in terms of S.247 (7) of Code -- penalty under Rules, 1996 is in addition to prosecution under Rules, 2006 or penalty under section 247(7) of Code -- violator has to volunteer and seek compounding before serving notice of penalty in terms of R.53(2) -- vehicle is included in expression "other materials" in R.53(6) -- forfeiture in terms of R.53(3) (a) can be resorted to only when penalty in terms of R. 53(1) is not paid.
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 247 (7) (as amended on 30.12.2011) -- M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R. 53 (as substituted on 18.5.2017) -- M.P. Minor Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 1996 -- R. 18 provisions of rules -- whether contradict section 247 of Code -- such rules neither contradict section 247 of Code nor suffer any other vice of illegality.
Held: Having answered the questions framed, the conclusions can be summarÁed as under :
(i) The M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 or the M. P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 are the rules made by the State Government in exercise of the powers vested in the State Government in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Such Rules neither contradict sub-section (7) of section 247 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 nor suffer from any other vice of illegality.
(ii) The M. P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 provide for prosecution in respect of transportation and storage of minerals including minor minerals but such prosecution is in addition to penalty to be imposed in terms of sub-section (7) of section 247 of the Code in respect of illegal extraction or removal of minerals.
(iii) The M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 provide for penalty for extraction or transportation of minor minerals, which is in addition to the prosecution under the M. P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 or the penalty to be imposed under sub-section (7) of section 247 of the Code.
(iv) The penalty relating to royalty amount in terms of rule 53 of the 1996 Rules is legal and valid till such time it does not exceed four times (as amended by M. P. Act No. 42 of 2011 w.e.f. 30.12.2011) of the market value of the minor mineral extracted. The extraction or removal of minerals other than minor mineral shall continue to attract penalty in terms of sub-section (7) of section 247 of the Code.
(v) The penalties and forfeiture of minerals, machines, tools, vehicles etc. under rule 53 of the 1996 Rules, in all other respects, except in respect of illegal extraction or removal of minor minerals, which are covered by sub-section (7) of section 247 of the Code, shall be applicable without any condition.
(vi) The benefit to seek compounding has to be exercised before serving a notice of imposition of penalty in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 53 of 1996 Rules or in the event of seÁure of tools, machines, vehicles and other material in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 53 of the 1996 Rules. The competent authority is not required to give any option to the violator to seek compounding of violation of the Rules but the violator himself has to volunteer and seek compounding.
(vii) The vehicle is included in the expression "other materials" in the last line of sub-rule 6 of rule 53. Still the omission to use the "vehicle" specifically in the last line of sub-rule (6) is meaningless and unintentional.
(viii) The forfeiture of mineral or tools, machines and vehicles cannot be resorted to without giving an opportunity to the violator to pay penalty in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 53 of the 1996 Rules. Similarly, the forfeiture of seÁed tools, machines and vehicles etc. in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 53 can be resorted to only when penalty in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 53 is not paid.
(ix) In case of the vehicles transporting or extracting mineral without any transit pass in terms of clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 53, the forfeiture can be ordered after three defaults whereas, in case of other situations, the forfeiture can be ordered after four defaults.
(x) The violator would be liable to be criminally prosecuted in respect of minerals including the minor minerals in terms of the 2006 Rules whereas in terms of rule 53 of the 1996 Rules, the violator will be liable to pay penalty, which is distinct from the criminal proceedings.
(1980) 1 SCC 370 and (2017)15 SCC 133 followed. Writ Petition No. 20686 of 2017 decided on 25.4.2018 and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2592 of 2006 decided on 12.5.2015 overruled. (2004)3 SCC 609 and Writ Petition No. 18818 of 2017 decided on 15.2.2018 referred to. [Paras 7 & 36
(6) Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (M.P.) -- R. 18 M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R. 53 (as substituted on 18.5.2017 -- provisions of above Rules -- contradiction -- confiscation of minerals or its products, equipment and carrier consequent to criminal proceedings under 2006 Rules -- confiscation of minerals, tools, machines and vehicles under Rule 53 of 1996 Rules are distinct provisions -- 1996 Rule do not substitute trial of offence as contemplated under rule 18 of 2006 Rules -- but under rule 53 of 1996 Rules, imposition of penalty cannot be said to be contravening provisions of 2006 Rules -- under rule 18 (6) power of confiscation vested with Magistrate trying the offence -- while rule 53 of Rules of 1996 contemplates penalty and that too by executive and consequent to confiscation. [Para 9
(7) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R. 53 (1), 53(2) and 53(3) (as substituted on 18.5.2017) -- right to seek compounding -- benefit of compounding can be sought soon after minerals are seÁed -- but in any case before issuance of imposition of penalty notice. [Para 21
(8) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- R. 53 (1) and 53(3)(b) (as substituted on 18.5.2017 -- issue of forfeiture -- vehicle carrying mineral extracted/transported without any transit pass -- violator can offer to pay penalty -- forfeiture can be ordered after three defaults -- in case of other situations, forfeiture can be ordered after four defaults. [Para 34
Gupta, CJ.--1. The challenge in the present bunch of petitions is to rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Rules”) as substituted on 18.5.2017.
2. On 18.7.2018, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench doubting the correctness of a Division Bench order of this Court passed on 25.4.2018 in Writ Petition No. 20686/2017 (Nihal Khan v. State of M.P.). The order dated 18.7.2018 reads as under :
“Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) as substituted on 18.5.2017 contemplates imposition of penalty in respect of illegal mining and transportation in a graded manner in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 53 of the Rules.
Sub-rule (2) of rule 53 of the Rules deals with forfeiture of minerals in cases of illegal extraction and transportation. It contemplates that the seÁed minerals shall not be discharged till the penalty as contemplated in sub-rule (1) is not paid. It is thus argued that the forfeiture will not follow, if the penalty in terms of sub-rule (1) is paid. Only in the event of failure to pay penalty in terms of sub-rule (1), the forfeiture can be affected in terms of sub-rule (1).
Sub-rule (3) of the Rules deals with forfeiture/discharge of the seÁed machines, tools and vehicles. Sub-rule (3)(a) contemplates that the tools, machines, vehicles and other material so seÁed shall not be discharged till the penalty imposed in terms of sub-rule (1) is paid. It is only thereafter, forfeiture can be affected. Sub-rule (3)(b) is in respect of mineral extracted or transported without any transit pass, which again has to be dealt with in the same manner i.e. after imposition of the penalty four times in terms of rule 53(1) of the Rules, there can be forfeiture. Second Proviso in fact permits the vehicles to be forfeited on 24 connected matters fourth default as against the penalty which is payable even on fourth default in terms of sub-rule (1).
It is contended that the forfeiture cannot be resorted to at the first instance without imposition of penalty in terms of sub-rule (1) either in the case of mineral or in the case of machines, tools and vehicles. It is argued that the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 20686/2017 (Nihal Khan v. The State of M.P.) decided on 25.4.2018, has not noticed the Scheme of the Rules in a correct perspective.
On the other hand, Mr. Yadav argued that the Competent Authority has a liberty to either forfeit or to impose penalty. Therefore, on account of illegal extraction and transportation of mineral, there can be forfeiture.
We are doubtful about the arguments by Shri Yadav raised. There cannot be total discretion to the Competent Authority to impose penalty in his choice or to resort to forfeiture as per his discretion.
We find that the view taken by this Court on 25.4.2018 in Nihal Khan’s case (supra), requires reconsideration. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to refer these matters to a Larger Bench.
List before the Larger Bench on 8.8.2018.
The State may file reply in the meantime, if chooses so. Interim order to continue.”
3. We find that the following questions arise for the opinion of this Court :
(1) Whether the State Government is competent to frame M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Rules”) in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the Code”)?
(2) Whether the 1996 Rules, as amended on 18.5.2017, are legal and valid in the face of M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for short “the 2006 Rules”), as both have been enacted by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (No.67 of 1957) (for short “the Central Act”)?
(3) Whether the option of compounding is available to the violator during pendency of the proceedings before the Collector and/or in appeal or at an
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
