Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Kushwaha Thr Kalyan Singh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2016
1
WP.No.8294/2016
(Jagdish Kushwaha & Another vs. The State of M.P. & Others)
22.12.2016
Shri N.K.Gupta, learned Senior counsel along with Shri
S.D.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Govt. counsel for the /State.
The petitioner assails the order of the Collector passed under
Rule 53(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996
(herein after referred as 1996 Rules) by imposing fine of
Rs.40,000/-(20 times value of Minerals Seized).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order
on the ground that the Collector has no jurisdiction to impose fine
by compounding u/R. 53(5) of the 1996 Rules in the absence of an
application in that regard. Therefore learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the impugned order passed is bereft of
jurisdiction vested with the Collector under the said rule thereby
entitling the petitioner to directly invoke writ jurisdiction without
first availing the appellate/ revisional jurisdiction of the authorities
under Rule 57 of the 1996 Rules.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.11.2016 the truck
bearing registration No. MP07GA-3629 belonging to the petitioner
carrying sand was seized by the Mining Officer under the
provision of Rule 53(1) of the 1996 Rules and the custody of the
truck was handed over to the concerned Police Station. Thereafter,
it appears that just 2 days hence on 07.11.2016, the Collector
invoked his power under Rule 53(5) of the Rules 1996 by
imposing fine of Rs.40,000/- calculated at the rate of 20 times of
the market value of the mineral seized by compounding the
offence.
4. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners
2
WP.No.8294/2016
and also the reply filed by the State, it is evident that after seizure
of the truck alongwith the alleged unlawful minor minerals, the
petitioner was not intimated so as to unable him to either pray for
release of custody of the vehicle before the Collector or before the
Magistrate in case intimation to the Magistrate was sent by the
Collector under Clause (4) of the Rule 53. In fact, the Collector
adopted short cut method without any application for
compounding made by the petitioner, invoked Clause (5) of Rule
53 and imposed fine of Rs.40,000/- (20 times of market value of
Minerals) by way of compounding.
5. The concept of compounding is not relatable to suo motto
exercise of power but is a bilateral exercise initiated by express
willingness of defaulting party to compound the offence alleged
followed by order of compounding by the competent authority in
terms of the enabling provision in that regard.
6. In the instant case, there was no application made by the
petitioner for compounding. Therefore, it was not open to the
Collector to invoke Clause (5) of the Rule 53.
7. In the absence of application for compounding the only
option available to the Collector was to intimate the concerned
Magistrate about the registration of offence under Rule 53(1) of
the 1996 Rules which would have vested the Magistrate with
jurisdiction to deal with the offence and conduct trial culminating
into acquittal or conviction in terms of the punishment provided in
Rule 53(1) of the Rules 1996, followed by confiscation of the
vehicle.
8. The scheme of the Rule 53 is thus clear and from the
analysis of the facts as has been enumerated above, it is evident
that the Collector had no authority to pass the order impugned
3
WP.No.8294/2016
herein in the absence of any express request in that regard made by
the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this court has no option but to allow this
petition with the following directions :-
1.The impugned order dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, District Guna is hereby quashed.
2. The Collector is free to proceed in the matter in terms of Rule 53.
3. The petitioners are free to apply for grant of custody of vehicle in question before the Collector, in case, no intimation is sent to the Magistrate. However in case the Magistrate has assumed jurisdiction in the matter under clause (4) of Rule 53 then for the said purpose, the petitioners may approach the competent Magistrate.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.K.Awasthi)
Judge Judge
AK/-