Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Gaba vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 July, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -1-
and other connected cases
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. CWP No. 2390 of 2020
Reserved on : 02.7.2024
Date of Decision: 11.7.2024
Jitender Gaba ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
2. CWP No. 3023 of 2020
Shamshad ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
3. CWP No. 4856 of 2020
Sanjeev Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
4. CWP No. 4891 of 2020
Ankit Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
5. CWP No. 4954 of 2020
Sanjeev Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
6. CWP No. 4958 of 2020
Ramanand Kasan ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -2-
and other connected cases
7. CWP No. 4991 of 2020
Shokin ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
8. CWP No. 5815 of 2020
M/s Jai Ambe Cement Store ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
9. CWP No. 5739 of 2020
Ajaz Alam ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
10. CWP No. 5897 of 2020
M/s Shree Ganesh Secraning Plant ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
11. CWP No. 5896 of 2020
Surender Malik ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
12. CWP No. 6040 of 2020
Davinder Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
2 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -3-
and other connected cases
13. CWP No. 15068 of 2020
Harmesh Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
14. CWP No. 6029 of 2020
Sandeep Singh Pundir ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
15. CWP No. 17058 of 2020
Gulbhar Siwal ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
16. CWP No. 11468 of 2020
Jitender Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
17. CWP No. 13742 of 2020
Pardeep Kumar and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
18. CWP No. 31335 of 2019
Sanjeev Ahuja ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
3 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -4-
and other connected cases
19. CWP No. 5582 of 2021
Anil Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
20. CWP No. 34227 of 2019
Tarsem Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
21. CWP No. 34987 of 2019
Geeta ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
22. CWP No. 3330 of 2020
Prince Saini ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
23. CWP No. 3971 of 2020
Mohit ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
24. CWP No. 4435 of 2020
Dalbir Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
4 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -5-
and other connected cases
25. CWP No. 15958 of 2020
Ameer Alam ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
26. CWP No. 17864 of 2020
Manjeet Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
27. CWP No. 5985 of 2021
Narender @ Monu ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
28. CWP No. 22539 of 2020
M/s Sudha Screening Enterprises ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
29. CWP No. 8337 of 2021
Rajani Gupta ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
30. CWP No. 20879 of 2021
Rahul ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
5 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -6-
and other connected cases
31. CWP No. 18621 of 2020
Dhiraj Gandhi ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
32. CWP No. 207 of 2021
Karambir ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
33. CWP No. 3860 of 2020
Narender ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Ms. Vishali Kamboj, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No. 3971-2020).
Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP No. 15068-2020)
Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate
for the petitioner in (CWP No. 34227-2019).
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No. 8337-2021).
Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate
for the petitioner (s) ( in CWP No. 6040, 6111, 17058, 5897,
5896, 5815, 5739 of 2020
Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate,for the petitioner
(in CWP No. 22539-2020).
Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CWP No. 13742-2020)
Ms. Malika Sobti and Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate
for the petitioner in (CWP No. 5582-2021).
Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP No. 18621-2020).
Mr. Ram Niwas, Advocate for
Mr. R.K. Doon, Advocate, for the petitioner
(in CWP No. 207-2021)
Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP No. 3860-2020).
6 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB
CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -7-
and other connected cases
Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since in all the writ petitions the hereinafter extracted common questions of law arise for determination, besides when the relevant claim(s) reared in the writ petitions (supra), relate to the quashing of the impugned orders, as, respectively embodied in the respective annexures appended with the writ petitions (supra), wherebys for wants of the drivers, to at the relevant time, thus disclose to the inspecting officer concerned, the material suggestive qua the minor minerals, loaded in the impounded vehicles, becoming legally excavated from the mining site concerned, thus the apposite vehicles became seized. Therefore, all the writ petitions (supra) are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.
(i) Whether the owners of the impounded vehicles, thus at the relevant time became assigned valid e-rawana portals ?
(ii) Whether the weight of the transported thereins minor minerals concerned, was in excess of the weight mentioned in the e-rawana portals and the consequence thereof ?
(iii) Whether therebys the mandate of Rules 101(5) and 101(7) as carried in Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012, as framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, and, which became interpreted in paragraph 4 of the verdict recorded by this Court in CRM-M-27884-2022 on 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -8- and other connected cases 20.7.2022, para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, do therebys leverage an empowerment in the authorizing inspecting officer concerned, to not only forfeit, the apposite excess weight of the minor mineral(s) concerned, but also becomes empowered to impound the apposite vehicle.
However, yet thereunders the owner of the vehicle, is also empowered, to ask for the release of the impounded vehicle, but only on realization from him of the price of the excess weight of the minor mineral(s) transported in the vehicles concerned, and, also upon his depositing the applicable royalty qua the excess weight of the minor mineral, and, in addition he becomes liable to fine which is statutorily prescribed to be not less than Rs.10,000/-.
Rule 101(5) & 101(7) "101(5) If the authorised officer/ official in-charge of the check-post or any other authorised officer has reasons to believe that the mineral or its products are being transported under a mineral transit pass which is suspected to be tampered or transportation is found without any valid transport permit, the authorised officer/ official(s) in-charge of the check post, shall take action as provided under rule 104 of these rules."
"101(7) Where the officer-in-charge of the check-post or any other authorised officer has reasons to believe that the weight recorded in the mineral transit pass is not correct, he may direct the person in charge of the carrier to take such carrier to the nearest electronic weigh bridge and take recourse to action prescribed for under-weighment under these rules."
8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -9- and other connected cases "Para 4 of CRM-M-27884-2022
4. But since yet a specific mandate in respect of illegal transportation, of minor mineral(s), in the truck concerned, is contemplated in Rule 102 of the Rules, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, hence sub-Rule 7 of the Rule 101 of the Rules cannot here become awakened, but yet when as above stated, the excess load of the minor mineral(s), as, carried in the vehicle, was rather a sequel of it beyond the weight prescribed in the E-Rawana/E-Transit pass, and, though may make the apposite excess to be an illegal transportation thereof. Moreover, though rather in the above event, the authorized inspecting officer becomes empowered under sub-Rule 1 of Rule 102 of the Rules, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter, to not only forfeit, the apposite excess weight of the minor mineral(s) concerned, but also becomes empowered to impound the apposite vehicle. However, the owner of the vehicle, is also empowered, to ask for the release of the impounded vehicle, but only on realization from him of the price of the minor mineral(s), and, also upon his depositing the applicable royalty qua the minor mineral, and, in addition he becomes liable to fine which is statutorily prescribed to be not less than Rs.10,000/-. However, the statutory prescription, as made in sub-Rule 1 of Rule 102 of the Rules appertains to a first time offender, but since the present petitioner is admittedly, a second time offender, thereupon, the mandate, as carried in sub-Rule 2 of Rule 102 of the Rules, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter, rather becomes applicable to him.
"102. Wherever a carrier is found to be transporting any mineral, in whatever form, without a valid mineral transit pass as required under rule 98, and/ or a valid mineral transport permit as required under rule 99, he would be dealt with as under,
(i) Where a carrier is found to be indulging in violation of the rules for the first time, the said mineral would be liable to 9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -10- and other connected cases be forfeited along with the impounding of the vehicle, which may be released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than Ten Thousand rupees;
ii) Wherever a carrier is found to be indulging in such violation for the second time, the said mineral would be liable to be forfeited along with the impounding of the vehicle for a minimum period of three days and released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees;
(iii) Wherever a carrier is found to be indulging in such violation for the third time, the said mineral would be liable to be forfeited alongwith the impounding of the vehicle for a period of minimum ten days, and for relase shall entail payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall be twenty five thousand rupees;
(iv) Wherever a carrier is found to be indulging in such violation for the fourth time or more, the officer concerned shall register an FIR and handover the carrier along with the mineral to the police. The penalty, fine and punishment for the offence shall be as provided under Section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957."
A reading of the above provisions, unfolds that in respect of the apposite excess weight of the minor mineral, as carried in the apposite vehicle, rather an empowerment being vested in the authority concerned, to cause its forfeiture, and, to also impound, the vehicle, whereons, it was carried, but yet after a minimum period of 3 days, rather the impounded vehicle being amenable for its release to the registered owner, but only upon realization from him, of the payment of the price of the mineral, and, of the applicable royalty qua the mineral. Moreover, the registered owner is liable to also pay a fine not less than Rs.15,000/-."
(iv) Whether the statutory prescription, as made in sub-Rule 1 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -11- and other connected cases of Rule 102 of the Rules, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, as appertain to a first time offender, are as contended to be the present petitioners, thus applicable to the petitioners, besides whether the impugned orders (supra) wherebys the petitioners' vehicles have been impounded, but with a rider that their releases would be caused to the petitioners concerned, on realization from each of them of at least 5% of the showroom value of the said vehicles, thus are in transgression of the Rule (supra).
"102. Wherever a carrier is found to be transporting any mineral, in whatever form, without a valid mineral transit pass as required under rule 98, and/ or a valid mineral transport permit as required under rule 99, he would be dealt with as under,
(i) Where a carrier is found to be indulging in violation of the rules for the first time, the said mineral would be liable to be forfeited along with the impounding of the vehicle, which may be released only upon realisation of the payment of price of the mineral and the applicable royalty for the mineral being transported and, in addition, a fine which shall not be less than Ten Thousand rupees;
x x x x
(v) Whether the said condition imposed in the impugned
orders, was is in terms of the verdict rendered on 5.4.2019, upon Original Application No. 360 of 2015, thus by the National Green Tribunal concerned.
(vi) Whether therebys the said orders can be deemed to be in transgression of the Rules (supra). Resultantly, whether therebys the impugned orders impounding the petitioners'
11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -12- and other connected cases vehicles can be quashed and set aside.
(vii) In case the relevant impounded vehicles were carrying thereins the minor minerals concerned, which became excavated from a valid source, and, also were at the relevant time maintaining validly assigned e-rawangi portals, whether therebys the conclusion drawn by this Court, thus in paragraph 8 of the judgment rendered by this Court in CRM-M-27884- 2022 on 20.7.2022, para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, is applicable to the instant writ petitions, for therebys for reasons (supra) carried thereins, this Court had distinguished the apposite order relied, upon, by the respondents concerned, while therebys making a conditional order of release of the impounded vehicles vis-a-vis the owners thereof.
"8. To the considered mind of this Court, it is permissible to delve into, and, adjudicate, the above factum, even irrespective of a conclusive, and, binding (supra), becoming made by the NGT, especially when, as stated above, the verdict (supra), does not encapsulate, a situation appertaining to the trite factum with which this Court is seized, and, which vividly discloses, that neither illegal mining nor illegal excavation of minor minerals, did here occur, whereas, illegal mining(s)/excavation(s) of minor minerals, rather was the factual situation before the NGT, and, conspicuously hence was completely contradistinct qua the factual situation here, rather appertaining to the transportation of prima-facie legally excavated minor mineral (supra), but only weight thereof, as carried in the impounded vehicle concerned, rather being in excess of the permissible weight, as spelt out, in the E-Rawana/E-way pass. Nonetheless, since even in respect of the excess weight, no evidence becomes adduced, qua it being a sequel of illegal mining, thereupon too, it cannot also be 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -13- and other connected cases concluded to be illegally excavated. In consequence the verdicts (supra), are not applicable to the facts at hand."
2. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court only in respect of those vehicles, whose drivers were at the relevant time holding validly assigned e-rawangi portals, thus quashes the impugned orders, but with a direction to the District Mining Officer concerned, to in terms of the above conclusion, as carried in paragraph 8 of the verdict (supra), thus to consider the re-drawing of the said order, besides would proceed to make a further direction upon the District Mining Officer concerned, to in terms of Rule 102 of the Rules, thus consider whether the impounded vehicles concerned can be caused to be released to the petitioners concerned, thus upon imposition of the penalties/fines as contemplated thereins.
3. Be that as it may, for the further reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court is of the firm view, that the owners of the impounded vehicles rather were imperatively enjoined to maintain validly assigned e- rawangi portals, as therebys they would save applications vis-a-vis them of the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (for short 'the NGT') concerned, especially when the said made order by the NGT concerned, became affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a judgment rendered on 7.5.2019, upon Civil Appeal No. 1590 of 2019.
4. The reasons for forming the above conclusion becomes sparked from the trite factum, that the apposite order as became rendered by the NGT concerned, and, which has becomes depended upon in the impugned order, thus became affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court drawn on 7.5.2019, upon Civil Appeal No. 1590 of 2019. Resultantly, the apposite order rendered by the NGT concerned, and, which became relied upon by the 13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -14- and other connected cases District Mining Officer concerned, in his drawing the impugned orders, but require becoming completely countenanced by this Court.
5. In the wake of the above, prima facie, at this stage, when in contemporaneity to the makings of seizure of the vehicles concerned, thus at the relevant sites by the investigating officer concerned, and, when then the drivers concerned, did not evidently hold the validly assigned e-rawana portals vis-a-vis the vehicles concerned. Resultantly, therebys the mandate of the NGT, which became affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, became well depended upon, by the District Mining Officer concerned, in his drawing the impugned order(s).
6. Conspicuously also, when in the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 8154 of 2024 titled as Lakhveer Singh versus State of Punjab, decided on 27.5.2024, this Court had incisively dealt with the necessity of the drivers of the vehicles concerned, whereins, became transported the minor minerals concerned, thus to at the time of inspections thereofs being made at the relevant site by the inspecting officer concerned, rather imperatively possess the validly assigned theretos e-rawana portals, besides to then possess the relevant X-pass. Moreover, when the said judgment has been banked upon Rules 74 and 75, as occurs in the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 2013 (hereinafter for short called as 'the Punjab Rules of 2013'), which are almost parameteria to the Rules framed by the State of Haryana. Therefore too, in case the impugned orders are interfered with, therebys the holistic purpose behind the apposite order passed by the NGT, which became referred to in the impugned order(s) rather would become defeated, especially when it intends to achieve the well purpose qua therebys not only adherence being ensured to be made to all the relevant rules, rather 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -15- and other connected cases forbidding the making of illegal excavations of the minor minerals concerned, besides ensures the curbings of the menace of illegal transportation thereofs being made thus in the apposite vehicles. Moreover, it would also create an ill situation wherebys this Court does ill-countenance the illegality, as became committed by the owners of the impounded vehicles concerned, thus in theirs loading thereons the minor minerals concerned, despite the drivers thereof rather at the relevant time, hence evidently neither possessing validly assigned e-rawana portals nor the X- passes'. Importantly when therebys it is to be well construed that therebys the minor minerals transported in the impounded vehicles became illegally excavated or became ill sourced. In aftermath, this Court is of the firm and formidable view, that only in respect of those vehicles whose drivers at the relevant time possessed the validly assigned e-rawana portals, cases whereof are respectively embodied in CWP No. 4856 of 2020 and in CWP 5896 of 2020, that the impugned order(s)/seizure memo(s), thus are required to be invalidated.
7. Be that as it may, this Court after quashing the impugned order(s)/seizure memo(s) in CWPs (supra) proceeds to also make an order of remand, upon, the District Mining Officer concerned, to in terms of Rule 101 of the Rules, proceed to, as contemplated thereins, impose penalties, and, fines, upon the errant owners of the impounded vehicles concerned. The order on remand be positively passed within two months from today, but after hearing all the affected persons concerned. On liquidation of the lawfully imposed penalties, and, fines from the owners of the impounded vehicles concerned, the Mining Officer concerned, shall lawfully release the vehicles in cases (supra) to the owners thereofs.
15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087066-DB CWP No. 2390 of 2020 -16- and other connected cases
8. Nonetheless, it is further clarified, that the other petitioners may avail the statutory remedy of appeal, as contemplated in Rule 109(1) of the Rules, before the competent appellate authority concerned, wherebys they may challenge the impugned orders, but only through theirs adducing therebefore the best evidence to the effect, that their respective drivers did at the relevant time hold the relevant validly assigned e-rawana portals. In case the evidence (supra) is not adduced, thereupon, it is further clarified, that since even in the impugned order(s), the offence has been stated to be compoundable, thus in the said raised statutory appeals, the petitioners may claim the releases of their respective impounded vehicles, thus on each of them satisfying the conditions embodied thereins, as the said conditions carried in the apposite order rendered by the NGT concerned, order whereof has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, do therebys require their fullest and effective implementation at the instance of all the concerned.
9. With the afore observations, all the petitions (supra) are disposed of.
10. The pending application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE July 11th, 2024 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 16 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 18-07-2024 21:05:31 :::