Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13277
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. Nagresh, J
Rahul P.U. – Appellant
Versus
The Geologist Department of Mining and Geology – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17394 OF 2022 | WP(C).20520/2022 | WP(C).21614/2022 | WP(C).27053/2022 | WP(C).27423/2022 | WP(C).29586/2022 | WP(C).29827/2022 | WP(C).29847/2022 | WP(C).29973/2022 | WP(C).31585/2022 | WP(C).31607/2022 | WP(C).31997/2022 | WP(C).32240/2022 | WP(C).32252/2022 | WP(C).32272/2022 | WP(C).33168/2022 | WP(C).33438/2022 | WP(C).33515/2022 | WP(C).33673/2022 | WP(C).33861/2022 | WP(C).33865/2022 | WP(C).33874/2022 | WP(C).33941/2022 | WP(C).34133/2022 | WP(C).34381/2022 | WP(C).34485/2022 | WP(C).34517/2022 | WP(C).34680/2022 | WP(C).34806/2022 | WP(C).34952/2022 | WP(C).35102/2022 | WP(C).35434/2022 | WP(C).35456/2022 | WP(C).35601/2022 | WP(C).35613/2022 | WP(C).35788/2022 | WP(C).36136/2022 | WP(C).36137/2022 | WP(C).36287/2022 | WP(C).36289/2022 | WP(C).36307/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu S. Nair, K. Rakesh, K.V. Gopinathan Nair, K.M. Firoz, K.K. Mohamed Rauf, P.M. Siraj
For the Respondents: Deepa Narayanan
The court confirmed that vehicles seized under the MMDR Act can be confiscated regardless of special court constitution, emphasizing that seizure and confiscation proceedings are distinct.
Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 21(4), 21(4A), 30B, 22, and relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code - Seizure of vehicles alleged to be in contravention of the MMDR Act - The court ruled that the constitution of special courts is not mandatory, and seizures are valid despite the absence of such courts. All petitioners need to approach competent authorities for interim custody of the seized vehicles. (Paras 1-25)
(B) The necessity of criminal prosecution for confiscation proceedings is distinct from seizure provisions; the court maintains that applicable laws permit both actions without the need for special courts.
(C) Relevant judgments highlight the distinction between seizure and confiscation processes in the context of the MMDR Act, confirming police authority to effect seizures under defined circumstances
(D) The court directs that the vehicles seized, subject to valid permits, should be surrendered, with petitioners entitled to seek interim custody rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. question of seizures under mmdr act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. authorities' competency in seizures. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial interpretation of seizure and confiscation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. constitutionality of proceedings under mmdr act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. legislative intent regarding special courts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The question posed for consideration in these writ petitions is whether any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing can be seized under Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and whether seized articles are liable to be confiscated under (4A), when no Special Court is constituted as contemplated under Section 30B of the Act, 1957. The petitioners would urge that seizure cannot be effected when no Special Court is notified under .
2. In all the writ petitions in this batch of writ petitions, vehicles owned by the petitioners were seized by Police Officers / Revenue Officials alleging contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MMDR Act’, for short) and the Rules made thereunder.
3. The petitioners state that confiscation of any property including vehicles seized, can be only by an order of the Court competent to take cognisance of the offence under the MMDR Act. Section 30B of the MMDR Act mandated the State Government to constitute Special Court/s for speedy disposal of cases. The State Government has not constituted Special Courts so far.
4. If any complaint is made before any court, the parties can approach the courts for getting interim custody of vehicles, either under Section 451 or under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973. Since the State has not constituted Special Courts, there cannot be any prosecution for the offence and without a prosecution, there cannot be any confiscation, assert the petitioners. If confiscation is not legal, the seizure would also be bad in the eye of law.
5. The petitioners would further argue that the authorities who seized the vehicles are not officers specially empowered to effect seizure and the seizure is unsustainable on that score also. The authorities cannot even file a complaint in respect of the alleged offences, as there is no Special Court legally constituted. Unlike in other enactments like the Customs Act, Abkari Act, etc. providing separate parallel confiscation proceedings, under the MMDR Act only the court competent to take cognisance under Section 22 alone has power to confiscate. As there is no court competent to confiscate, there cannot be legal seizure, urged the petitioners.
6. The Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents resisted the writ petition. As regards the competency of officials to effect seizure, the Special Government Pleader argued that under Section 102 Cr.P.C., a police officer has power to seize any vehicle found under suspicious circumstances of commission of any offence. The Government Pleader relied on the Full Bench judgment in Prakash Nayak v. District Collector [ AIR 2017 Ker. 55 ] in support of the proposition. A complaint from the competent authority is not necessary for the police to seize any vehicle.
7. When a police officer seizes a vehicle found under suspicious circumstances, the Police has to report such seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate. If a vehicle is seized by a police officer suspecting violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act, the seizure will be reported to the Person Authorised, in view of Section 22 of the MMDR Act. A complaint from Person Authorised is not necessary for the police to seize a vehicle involved / suspected to be involved in an offence under the MMDR Act, contended the Government Pleader.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka [2021 (14) SCALE 303] that the Sessions Court shall not take cognisance
