Meghalaya High Court
Dilip Kumar Gupta vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 5 April, 2022
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 01 to 05
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 62 of 2022 with
WP(C) No. 63 of 2022
WP(C) No. 64 of 2022
WP(C) No. 65 of 2022
WP(C) No. 66 of 2022
Date of Decision: 05.04.2022
Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Janmahmmad Ali Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Monoranjan Kakati Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Kalu Ali Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Jitendra Kumar Bhartia Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M. Borah, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, GA
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. This batch of writ petitions being similar in facts and circumstances are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that their respective vehicles which were parked in an open area were seized on 21.01.2022 Page 1 of 6 by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District) on the allegation that these vehicles were involved in illegal mining activities. The stand of the petitioners is that they are not involved in any illegal mining activity and that the seizure shown in the name of one Sukur Ali, is incorrect. The further grievance is that pursuant to the seizure an Auction Sale Notice dated 14.02.2022 has been issued by the respondents, whereby their vehicles along with other equipment which have been seized from other stone crusher units belonging to other persons in the area had been put up for auction. The petitioners therefore have prayed for appropriate directions by seeking intervention of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
3. I have learned counsel for the parties.
4. Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire process which has resulted in the seizure of the vehicles is patently illegal as no notice, nor any proceedings, were drawn up to warrant such drastic action. She submits that the petitioners' vehicles are duly registered and are engaged in the lawful business of transporting of goods and services under valid transport challans. It is further submitted that the seizure which was effected, was on vehicles that were not carrying any materials, apart from the fact that even the name of the owner was wrongly recorded by the respondents to be one Sukur Ali. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that in view of the facts, there was no justification in seizing the vehicles and placing the same on auction vide the impugned notice and as such the respondents are liable to be directed to release the vehicle to the actual owners who are the petitioners herein.
Page 2 of 6
5. Learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents has firstly submitted that the seizures were made pursuant to final recovery orders issued by the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board, in accordance with directions issued by the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench in OA 48/2019 EZ in the matter of Jitul Deka vs. Union of India & Ors. and that the auction was for recovery of environmental compensation under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Learned Advocate General submits that on this ground alone, the writ petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have recourse to appeal against the same under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
6. It is further submitted that the vehicles were found at an illegal stone crusher unit for which no explanation was given, which belonged to one Deep Kalita which was found to be illegally operating and had also been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 97,93,750 (Ninety Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) only, as per the directions of the NGT and in exercise of powers under the Air and Water Acts. He contends that even otherwise, the impugned orders and actions are pursuant to the directions of the NGT, which is dealing with the matter of levy and recovery of environmental compensation from illegal stone mining and crushing activities in Meghalaya. He further submits that as per the orders laid down by the NGT, the seizure of vehicles involved in illegal transportation are liable to be released only after the deposit of 50% of the showroom value of the said vehicles. The learned Advocate General concludes by submitting that the writ petitions are not maintainable, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Page 3 of 6
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the only issue that deserves the consideration of this Court is whether in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, interference is warranted to decide on the legality of the impugned actions of the respondents. No doubt, it is apparent that seizure has been occasioned of property in the form of vehicles of the petitioners, who have pleaded their innocence and ignorance of the operation of the stated illegal quarrying and crushing operations, and perhaps they were un-aware about any proceedings in this regard under the orders of the NGT. However, the inescapable facts which have emerged on the examination of the materials placed before this Court, is that seizure of vehicles and other mining and crushing equipment, have been made in this area in connection with orders passed in OA 48/2019 EZ in the matter of Jitul Deka vs. Union of India & Ors. whereby inspections had been carried out and illegal mining and crushing units have been identified and directed to pay environmental compensation, such as unit of one Deep Kalita, from where the petitioners' vehicles were seized.
8. The seizure and release of vehicles in matters connected with illegal mining had been dealt with elaborately by the National Green Tribunal itself by order dated 23.06.2021 in OA 75/2020 (CZ). It is noted in the order that in the case of illegal mining in Meghalaya such seized vehicles were to be released only on payment of 50% of the showroom value which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2019 (8) SCC 177. However, having regard to the difficulty expressed with this requirement, it has now been stipulated in the same order as follows:-
Page 4 of 6
Seizure and Release of vehicles involved in illegal mining "8. Another issue bearing on the enforcement mechanism is the action against the vehicles used in illegal sand mining. Seizure of such vehicles is required and release of seized vehicles lightly defeats the purpose of the coercive measures. Since the vehicles are in a way weapon of offence, the same cannot be dealt with in the manner disputed property is dealt with under section 451 Cr.P.C. by releasing the same in favour of the ostensible owner by taking an entrustment/indemnity bond/sapurdginama. In Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129 and order dated 26.03.2019 in Cr. A. 524/2019, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh, it was held that special procedure for seizure and release of such vehicles prevails over the procedure under Section 451 Cr.P.C. This Tribunal earlier directed, in the case of illegal mining in Meghalaya that such vehicles should be released only on the payment of 50% of the showroom value. The same was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2019 (8) SCC 177. Similar order was passed by the Tribunal on 05.04.2019 and dated 26.07.2019 in O.A. No. 670/2018, Atul Chouhan v. State of U.P., which stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.05.2019 in C.A. No. 1590/2019. Thus, the procedure under Cr. P.C. for release of vehicles on superdari without stringent conditions would not apply in respect of action taken for enforcement of Sustainable Guidelines issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act) and for enforcement of orders of this Tribunal under Section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act). However, having regard to the difficulty expressed by the State that requirement to pay 50% of the showroom value of the vehicle was resulting in vehicles not being released at all, the earlier order was modified on 19.02.2020 to the effect that following scale of amount be recovered for release of the seized vehicles:-
Sr. Category of Vehicle Penalty
No. Amount
1 Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators with showroom value Rs. 4 lacs
more than Rs. 25 lacs and less than 5 years old.
2 Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators with showroom value
more than Rs. 25 lacs and more than 5 years but less than Rs. 3 lacs
10 years old.
3 For the remaining Vehicles older than 10
years/Equipments/Excavators which are otherwise legally Rs. 2 lacs
permissible to be operated and not covered by Serial No. 1 and 2.
Note-I: On repetition of the offence by the same vehicle/equipment, Order dated 05.04.2019 will be applicable.
Note-II: The option of release may be available for a period of one month from the date of seizure and thereafter, the vehicles may be confiscated and auctioned.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that vehicles alleged to be engaged in illegal mining cannot be dealt with under Section 451 Cr.PC, Page 5 of 6 even though the release of a vehicle is a micro issue, when compared with the enormity of the illegal mining and quarrying operations, the fact that the seizures were made in pursuance to orders emanating from proceedings before the NGT namely OA 48/2019 EZ in the matter of Jitul Deka vs. Union of India & Ors. however, cannot be overlooked.
10. In this view of the matter therefore, the petitioners' interest will be better served and more efficacious if they take recourse to and avail of alternate remedy available, in this case before the NGT.
11. For the reasons aforestated and without entering into the merits of the legality of the actions of the respondents, these writ petitions are held to be not maintainable due to the availability of alternate remedy and are accordingly dismissed.
12. The interim orders passed earlier all stand vacated.
13. There shall be no orders as to costs.
JUDGE Meghalaya 05.04.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"
Page 6 of 6