Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5027
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
M.N.RAJU – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C) 785/2023
P.M.ZIRAJ, IRFAN ZIRAJ
Presence of vehicles at an illegal mining site does not justify seizure without evidence of active illegal activity as per relevant laws.
Headnote:
Seizure - Writ Petitions - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 - Section 21(4), Rule 25 - Court interprets non-requirement of actual loading for lawful seizure.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners contested the seizure of their vehicles used allegedly for illegal mining, asserting that the vehicles were empty at the time of seizure and not engaged in any illicit activity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicles were seized without evidence of them being used for transporting minerals illegally, upholding prior decisions that merely being present at a quarry does not constitute an offence.
Issues: Whether the seizure of the petitioners' vehicles without evidence of illegal transport or extraction of minerals was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the mere presence of vehicles at a quarry site without any illegal activity does not warrant seizure under the applicable laws.
Final Decision: The writ petitions are allowed, and the vehicles are ordered to be released to their respective owners.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2023 [W.P.(C) Nos.23, 92, 113, 189 and 785 of 2023]
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by seizure of their Tipper Lorries/Excavators alleging that the vehicles were used for contravening the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 .
2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when the seizure of the vehicles was made, the Tipper Lorries were empty, not loaded by any minor minerals. The JCBs were not found involved in any activity of mining any minerals. Therefore, going by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022, the Lorries and Excavators are liable to be released.
3. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petitions. The Senior Government Pleader submitted that the findings of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022 are not legally sustainable and a Review Petition is being filed to review the said judgment.
4. The Senior Government Pleader relied on the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.23 of 2023, and stated that as instructed by this Court in the judgment dated 26.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2015 and connected cases and in the judgment dated 26.05.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 17365 of 2016 and connected cases, the Government had issued order for streamlining the compounding of offences as per G.O(Ms) No.51/2017/ID dated 21.06.2017 and in the said order it is categorically stated that the compounding fee for all the equipment/tools, empty vehicles seized in connection with illicit extraction shall be ₹25,000/-.
5. In judgment dated 26.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2015, this Court has classified the vehicles seized in connection with illegal mining and transport of minerals into three batches and the second batch of Lorries seized were classified as the goods vehicles and JCB that are seized at the site from which the excavation was being done. The Government had issued the Government Order mentioned above after detailed consideration of the judgment of this Court and specific mention was made regarding compounding fee of empty vehicles and it was included in the said Government Order.
6. In these cases also, the vehicles were seized not for illegal transport of mineral (as the lorries were standing stationary in the quarry) but for using the same in illegal extraction of mineral as per Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and as per Rule 108(4) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 . In the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10387 of 2020, this Court has pointed out that illegal extraction of minerals, without requisite permit or in violation of the permit conditions, will amount to theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the vehicle owners/drivers were engaged in theft of minerals using their vehicles. Hence, the act of the competent authority in seizing all the vehicles/tools/equipment involved in illegal mining is as per law, contended the Senior Government Pleader.
7. This Court in W.P.(C) No.40240 of 2022 held as follows:- “The Mahazar does not indicate that those Lorries were loaded or being loaded with laterite stone for illegal transportation. Mere presence of vehicles in a quarry by itself cannot constitute an offence. Only if a vehicle or a receptacle is found carrying minerals without Mineral Transit Passes, that an offence can be made out. In the circumstances of the case, the seizure of the vehicles of the petitioners which were not found carrying or transporting illicit minerals is illegal.”
8. The Senior Government Pleader relied on Section
21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and pointed out that whenever any person raises, transports or cause to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehic
