Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pritam Singh Rawat vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 2014
1
WRIT PETITION No.6302/2010
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(SB : SHEEL NAGU, J.)
WRIT PETITION No.6302/2010
Pritam Singh Rawat
Vs.
State of MP & Others.
Shri Arun Dudawat, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy. Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
(Passed on 02 September, 2014)
1. This instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 30.04.2010 contained in Annexure P/10 passed by Collector Morena levying fine/penalty Rs.2,79,400/- (ten times the amount of royalty) by invoking the provisions of Section 247 (7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("MPLRC" for brevity).
2. The challenge is further made to the appellate order passed under Section 44 of MPLRC by the Additional Collector, Chambal Division contained in Annexure P/11 dated 30.09.2010 upholding the order of Collector Morena.
3. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds in support of challenge to the order of penalty, but the learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer to the ground of impugned order of penalty being passed beyond jurisdiction vested in the Collector u/S.247 (7) of MPLRC.
4. Short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that a show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2009 Annexure P/8 for illegal mining of 635 cubic-metre stone over Survey Number 1681, valued at Rs.95,250/-, thereby alleging violation of the provision of Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 2 WRIT PETITION No.6302/2010 (for brevity "Rules of 1996"), calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why an amount of Rs.2,79,400/- (10 times the rate of royalty) be not imposed as penalty under the provision of the Rules of 1996.
5. On submitting reply to above said show cause notice Annexure P/9, the impugned order Annexure P/10 has been passed. The impugned order holds the petitioner liable to penalty for violation of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, but the Collector Morena while imposing the penalty, at the rate of 10 times the rate of royalty, invoked the provisions of Section 247 (7) of MPLRC. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that despite invoking the provisions of Section 53 of the Rules of 1996, while issuing show cause notice Annexure P/8, the Collector for reasons best known to him passed the impugned order invoking Section 247 (7) of MPLRC. It is accordingly submitted that the Collector was obliged to impose penalty under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 and not u/S. 247 (7) of MPLRC.
6. Learned counsel for State defending the impugned order states that the petitioner having indulged in illegal mining was liable to be levied and recovered the penalty and, therefore supports passing of the impugned order.
7. On hearing contentions of the rival parties, it is essential to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions of Rule 53 (1) of the Rules of 1996 and S. 247 (7) of MPLRC,hence they are reproduced here-in-below for convenience and ready reference:-
"53. Penalty for un-authorized extraction and transportation.-
(1) Whenever any person is found extracting or transporting minerals or on whose behalf such extraction or transportation is being made otherwise 3 WRIT PETITION No.6302/2010 than in accordance with these Rules, shall be presumed to be a party to the illegal extraction of minerals and every such person shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a minimum term of three months which may extend to two years or with find which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both."
"247. Government's title to minerals.- (7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes minerals from any mine or quarry, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by, the Government shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him to be liable, on the order in writing of the Collector, to pay penalty not exceeding a sum calculated at double the market value of the minerals so extracted or removed:"
8. On a comparative reading of the abovesaid two statutory provisions, it is revealed that the provisions of Section 247 (7) of MPLRC are applicable when unlawful extraction of minerals takes place from any mine or quarry, which is vested in the Government and has not been assigned by the Government to any other person. Whereas the power of imposing penalty under Rule 53 (1) of the Rules of 1996 can be exercised without any such restriction on any person who is found indulging in extracting/transporting minor minerals, otherwise than in accordance with the Rules of 1996.
9. Application of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, thus is wide enough and can be invoked in respect of any land either vested in the Government or on which rights of extraction of mineral are assigned to anyone. On the other hand, the application of Section 247 (7) is restricted to be applied to the 4 WRIT PETITION No.6302/2010 mine or quarry which belongs to the Government over which rights of extraction of minerals have not been assigned to anyone.
10. In the instant case, the illegal extraction is said to have been taken place over Survey Number 1681. The petitioner has been assigned lease hold rights for extraction of flag stone over Survey Numbers 1657, 1658 and 1681 admeasuring area 3.200 hectares of Village Kot Sirthara, Tahsil and District Morena by Annexure P/1 dated 03.01.2006 for a period of 10 years. Therefore, the illegal extraction in question is in respect of Survey Number 1681 over which the right for extraction of mineral are assigned to the petitioner and, therefore Section 247 (7) of MPLRC cannot come into play for imposing penalty for unlawful extraction.
11. On the other hand, Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, which applies to the present case, provides for penalty of simple imprisonment of two years or with fine to the maximum extent of Rs.50,000/- or with both.
12. Thus, the petitioner, to whom Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 squarely applies to the exclusion of Section 247 (7) of MPLRC, ought to have been dealt with under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 for imposing penalty and not under any other provision.
13. In view of the above, the imposition of penalty 10 times royalty amount by the impugned order is uncalled for and nor in accordance with law.
14. In view of the above, this petition stands allowed in the following terms :-
1. The impugned order dated 30.04.2010 Annexure P/10 passed by the Collector, Morena and the appellate order dated 30.09.2010 Annexure P/11 passed by the 5 WRIT PETITION No.6302/2010 Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena are quashed;
2. The competent authority is free to proceed with the case from the stage of issuance of show cause notice dated 31.12.2009 Annexure P/8 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 53 (1) of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.
3. Since this case discloses blatant ignorance of statutory provision, compelling petitioner to indulge in an avoidable piece of litigation, cost deserves to be imposed. Cost of Rs.2,000/- be paid to petitioner within 30 days with compliance report to be filed in the Registry.
(SHEEL NAGU) Judge 02/09/2014 Mehfooz/-