Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2012
Writ Appeal No.1320/2011 21.3.2012
Shri N. K. Tiwari, for the appellant.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition No.20316/2011.
The appellant is holder of a mineral dealer licence granted under the Madhya Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (in short, "the Rules"). He was found storing 600 metric ton of coal otherwise than in accordance with the Rules. The Collector Katni by order dated 25.6.2011, passed under sub-rule (5) of Rule 18 of the Rules, imposed a penalty on the appellant for such storage of coal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.20316/2011 on the ground that the order under sub-rule (5) of Rule 18 can be passed only as a measure to compound the offence committed under sub-rule (1) and he cannot be compelled to compound the offence. The learned Single Judge has, however, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.
Rule 18 of the Rules reads as under:
"18. Penalty for unauthorized Transportation or Storage of Minerals and its Products.- (1) Whenever any person is found transporting or storing any mineral or its products or on whose behalf such transportation or storage is being made otherwise than in accordance with these rules, shall be presumed to be a party to the illegal transportation or storage of mineral or its products and every such person shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to Rupees Five Thousand or with both.
(2) Whenever any person is found transporting or storing any mineral or its products in contravention of the provisions of these rules, the authorized person may seize the mineral or its products together with tools, equipment and carrier used in committing such offence.
(3) The authorized person seizing illegally transported or stored mineral or its products, tools, equipments and carrier shall give a receipt of the same to the person, from whose possession such things were so seized and shall make report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence.
(4) The property so seized under sub-rule (2) may be released by the authorized person, who seized such property on execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the authorized person by the person, from whose possession such property was seized on the condition that the same shall be produced at the time and place, when such production is asked for by the authorized person:
Provided that where a report has been made to the Magistrate under sub-rule (3), then the property so seized shall be released only under the orders of such Magistrate.
(5) The Authorised Person not below the rank of Collector, Additional Collector of Senior I.A.S. scale, Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and Officer Incharge (Flying Squad) may before reporting to the Magistrate, compound the offence so committed under sub-rule (1) on payment of such fine, which may extend to double the market value of mineral or its products or Rupees Five Thousand, but in any case it shall not be less than Rupees One Thousand or ten times of royalty of minerals so seized, whichever is higher:
Provided that in case of continuing contravention, the authorized person, not below the rank of Mining Officer in addition to the fine imposed may also recover an amount of Rupees Five Hundred for each day till the contravention continues.
(6) All property seized under sub-rule (2) shall be liable to be confiscated by order of the Magistrate trying the offence, if the amount of the fine and other sum so imposed are not paid within a period of one month from the date of order:
Provided that on payment of such sum within one month of the order, all property so seized, except the mineral or its products shall be released and the mineral or its products so seized under sub-rule (2) shall be confiscated and shall be the property of the State Government.
(7) The authorized person may, if deemed necessary, request the Police Authority in writing for the help of Police and the Police Authorities shall render such assistance, as may be necessary to enable the authorized person to exercise the powers conferred on him/her under these rules to stop illegal transportation or storage of minerals."
From the reading of the above quoted rule, it is clear that the order under sub-rule (5) can be passed by the Collector only as a measure to compound the offence punishable under sub-rule (1) and the appellant cannot be compelled to compound the offence. Further, on the non-payment of penalty imposed, the only course left to the Collector is to make a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence.
Since the submission of appellant is that he is not inclined to compound the offence and pay the penalty imposed by the Collector, it is expected that the latter will immediately (preferably within a week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order) make a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. The appellant then can file an application under sub-rule (4) before the concerned Magistrate for releasing the property seized and on such application being filed, the Magistrate will decide the same on its merit. Needless to mention that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the offence allegedly committed by the appellant and the Magistrate will be free to decide the proceedings in accordance with law.
With the above direction, we quash the order dated 2.12.2011 and allow the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (R. S. JHA) JUDGE JUDGE ps