Madras High Court
M. Esakki Pandi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 September, 2012
Author: Vinod K. Sharma
Bench: Vinod K. Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 03/09/2012
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
W.P.(MD)No.9414 of 2012
W.P.(MD)No.9800 of 2012
W.P.(MD)No.10118 of 2012
W.P.(MD)No. 10120 of 2012
W.P.(MD)No. 10863 of 2012
W.P.(MD)No. 11344 of 2012
and
W.P.(MD)No.11774 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
W.P.(MD)No.9414 of 2012:-
M. Esakki Pandi,
S/o. Murugan,
No.107/71, Rajakuthalaperi North Street,
Athalanallur,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District. ..... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Veeravanallur Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. ...... Respondents
W. P.(MD)No.9414 of 2012:-
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents No.2 and 3
to release the petitioner's vehicle namely TATA 909 Tipper Lorry bearing its
Registration No.TN 69 P 7560 to the petitioner.
!For Petitioners... Mr. R. Anand in
W.P.(MD)Nos.9414 & 11774 of 2012
Mr. P. Arunjayatram in
W.P.(MD)Nos.9800, 10118, 10120 of 2012
Mr. R. Maheswaran in W.P.No.10863 of2012
Ms. G. Abarna in W.P.(MD)No.11344 of 2012
^For Respondents... Mr. T. R. Janarthanam
Additional Government Pleader in all W.Ps
- - - - - - - - - -
:COMMON ORDER
This common order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos. 9414, 9800, 10118, 10120, 10863, 11344 and 11774 of 2012.
2. W.P.(MD)No.9414 of 2012:-
(i) In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to release the petitioner's vehicle namely TATA 909 Tipper Lorry bearing its Registration No.TN 69 P 7560.
(ii) It is pleaded case of the petitioner, that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, which was originally in the name of M/s. Siva Blue Metals.
That on 30.06.2012, due to political rivalry, the third respondent and his party men came there and forcibly took the vehicle to the police station, though the key of the vehicle is with the petitioner. The petitioner rushed to the police station, to find out the reasons for the seizure of vehicle. He was informed, that proceedings under The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, have been initiated by the Inspector of Police, as a result of which, the vehicle has been taken in custody of the second respondent. It is submitted, that a case under Section 379 I.P.C vide Crime No.210 of 2012 has been registered against the petitioner, for illegal transportation of sand. It is submitted, that due to political rivalry, and to deprive the petitioner's right to business, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Thus, it is prayed on the pleadings referred to above, that a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, be issued to release the vehicle.
3. W.P.(MD)No.9800 of 2012:-
(i) The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Pockline TATA HITACHI bearing Sl.No.01S1-050768, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2012.
(ii) It is pleaded case of the petitioner, that he had let out his Pockline on daily rent to the construction works of the Sivagangai Government Medical College. The vehicle of the petitioner was engaged for the purpose of taking gravel sand from Mela Vaniyangudi Kanmoi situated at Sivagangai, and used to load the sand into the tractors in order to transport the gravel sand to construction of Sivagangai Government Medical College. It is submitted, that on 18.06.2012, when his Pockline was standing in the bund of Mela Vaniyankudi Kanmoi without engaging any work, the Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk along with his subordinates came there and took away the keys of the Pockline, on the allegation, that the petitioner has illegally transported the gravel sand from the said Kanmoi to some other places than Medical College construction work. The activities of the third respondent was questioned by the Contractors, who had the permission to take gravel sand in the Mela Vaniyankudi Kanmoi, but the third respondent insisted them, to surrender number of tractors. It is submitted, that the petitioner went to the office of the third respondent, and denied the allegations levelled against him, and ask for return of the keys, but his request was not accepted. The petitioner was also not issued any receipt for seizure of Pockline. It is submitted, that in spite of best efforts, petitioner has not been successful in getting the vehicles released. On the pleadings referred to above, the petitioner prays for release of vehicle.
4. W.P.(MD)No.10118 of 2012:-
(i) In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Tractor and its Trailer in bearing Registration Nos. TN 63 V 0274 and TN 65 D 0817 by considering the representation dated 07.07.2012.
(ii) It is pleaded case of the petitioner, that he is the owner of the Tractor with Trailer bearing Registration Nos.TN 63 V 0274 and TN 65 D 0817.
He had let out his Tractor with Trailer on daily rent to the construction works of the Sivagangai Government Medical College. The Tractor with Trailer of the petitioner was engaged for the purpose of taking gravel sand from Mela Vaniyangudi Kanmoi situated at Sivagangai to the construction site at Sivagangai Government Medical College. It is submitted that on 18.06.2012, when his Tractor with Trailer was standing in the bund of Mela Vaniyankudi Kanmoi without engaging any work, the Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk along with his subordinates came there, and took away the keys of the vehicle on the allegation, that the petitioner has illegally transported the gravel sand from the said Kanmoi to some other places than Medical College construction work. The activities of the third respondent was questioned by the Contractors, who had the permission to take gravel sand in the Mela Vaniyankudi Kanmoi, but the third respondent insisted them, to surrender number of tractors. It is submitted, that the petitioner went to the office of the third respondent, and denied the allegations levelled against him, and ask for return of the keys, but his request was not accepted. The petitioner was also not issued any receipt for seizure of Tractor with Trailer. It is submitted, that in spite of best efforts, the petitioner has not been successful in getting the vehicles released. On the pleadings referred to above, the petitioner prays for release of vehicle.
5. W.P.(MD)No.10120 of 2012:-
(i) The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Tractor and its Trailer with bearing Registration No.TN 72 J 9820, by considering the representation dated 07.07.2012.
(ii) It is pleaded case of the petitioner, that he is the owner of the Tractor with Trailer bearing Registration No.TN 72 J 9820. He had let out his Tractor with Trailer on daily rent to the construction works of the Sivagangai Government Medical College. The Tractor with Trailer of the petitioner was engaged for the purpose of taking gravel sand from Mela Vaniyangudi Kanmoi situated at Sivagangai to the construction site at Sivagangai Government Medical College. It is submitted, that on 18.06.2012, when his Tractor with Trailer was standing in the bund of Mela Vaniyankudi Kanmoi without engaging any work, the Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk along with his subordinates came there, and took away the keys of the vehicle on the allegation, that the petitioner has illegally transported the gravel sand from the said Kanmoi to some other places than Medical College construction work. The activities of the third respondent was questioned by the Contractors, who had the permission to take gravel sand in the Mela Vaniyankudi Kanmoi, but the third respondent insisted them to surrender number of tractors. It is submitted, that the petitioner went to the office of the third respondent, and denied the allegations levelled against him and ask for return of the keys, but his request was not accepted. The petitioner was also not issued any receipt for seizure of Tractor with Trailer. Several attempts of the petitioner for release of vehicle has been failed. On 07.07.2012, the petitioner sent representation to the respondents, but till date no action has been taken on the representation. On the pleadings referred to above, the petitioner prays for release of vehicle.
6. W.P.(MD)No.10863 of 2012:-
(i) The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 W 4007 and its Tailor bearing Registration No.TN 63 S 9138, seized on 09.06.2011 by the respondents.
(ii) It is pleaded case of the petitioner, that she is the owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN 63 W 4007, and its Trailer bearing Registration No.TN 63 S 9138. The vehicle was used for carrying waste building materials, and it is only source of her income. The vehicle of the petitioner is alleged to have been seized on 08.06.2012, on the allegations of illegal sand quarrying without valid permit. The vehicle is in custody of the respondents.
The petitioner made a representation for release of vehicle, but no action was taken on the said representation. On the above pleadings, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer, as referred to above.
7. W.P.(MD)No.11344 of 2012:-
(i) The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to release the JCB (Deere 435 Backhoe Loader) bearing Registration No.TN-63-A-C 0653.
(ii) It is pleaded, that the petitioner is an Agriculturist, who purchased the vehicle in question from Mahindra Finance Ltd., and the monthly instalment payable to the finance company is Rs.54,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand only). It is submitted that one Joseph, S/o. Tharamani has asked for JCB, for executing of work in his land, for storing water, and utilize the soil taken from the pit, to his adjacent land. It is submitted, that when the said work was in progress, a case in Crime No.349 of 2012 for the offence under Section 21(iv) of the Mines and Minerals Act 1957 was registered against the petitioner on 11.07.2012. It is submitted that the taking of JCB by Joseph, S/o. Tharamani for agriculture purposes was protected under Section 6(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Concession Rules 1959. It is submitted, that the JCB machine was used for rental purposes, and it has been used only for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, be issued, directing the respondents to release the vehicle.
8. W.P.(MD)No.11774 of 2012:-
(i) The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to release the petitioner's vehicles viz., three Tipper Lorries bearing Registration Nos.TN 69 AY 8644, TN 69 AY 3804 and TN 69 AY 3802.
(ii) It is pleaded case of the petitioner, that he is the owner of the three lorries referred to above, which are being kept in illegal detention of second respondent, due to undue influence of respondent Nos.5 to 7. The petitioner is in the business of selling raw materials, for construction and in normal course of business, the petitioner get orders for transportation of sand from the licensed quarry. It is submitted, that Respondent Nos.5 to 7 had demanded bribe from the petitioner, and threatened the petitioner, that if the demand was not meted out, the petitioner will be put into trouble. It is also mentioned, that Respondent Nos.5 to 7 used to take liquor in the evening. As the petitioner did not accede to their demand, they have planned to register a criminal case against the petitioner. On 27.08.2012, sand was lifted from the licensed quarry at Pillayarnatham, Thoothukudi District along with the necessary permit chits issued by the Public Works Department. But, when the lorries nearing a place called Mukkani at about 08.00 p.m., the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 came there in their vehicle viz., Hundai Santro bearing Registration No.TN 69 AY 5000, and waylaid his lorries. The driver of the vehicle was directed, to produce permit chits with regard to transportation of sand, which was produced.
It is stated, that Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were under influence of liquor. It is mentioned, that the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 directed the driver of the lorry, to take it to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin District.
(iii) The petitioner approached the second respondent, for release of lorry, but his request was not accepted, and illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) was demanded. On 28.8.2012, again, the petitioner approached the second respondent, where he was directed to give a petition in writing. It was on the direction of the second respondent, that a modified complaint was filed. It is also mentioned, that in the proceedings conducted, the sixth respondent appeared in person, and requested for adjournment. The petitioner was informed, that Inspector of Police had come to the house of the petitioner, and took his father into custody. It was revealed to the petitioner, that a complaint was filed against the petitioner, in order to protect Respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is not disputed, that a case for offences under Section 353 and 506(II) I.P.C has been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted, that once all the necessary documents with necessary chits were shown, it is bounden duty of the second respondent, to release the vehicle immediately. Allegation of abuse of official power by the Inspector of Police is also alleged. On the above pleadings, the petitioner prayed that a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus be issued, directing the second respondent to release the vehicles.
9. The petitioners, in all these writ petitions, have challenged the seizure of the vehicles, on allegations of false implication. It is admitted case of the petitioners, that the vehicles have been taken in custody, on alleged offence either under The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 or for an offence under Section 379 I.P.C.
10. The main question, therefore to be considered, and decided in all these writs is, as to whether the petitioners are entitled to directions of this Court, for release of vehicles as prayed for, or to what alternative remedy is available to the petitioners.
11. All these writ petitions are opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, on the plea, that the vehicles have been seized, in exercise of the statutory power vested under The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1959") and The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2011") and therefore, the prayers made in all these writ petitions, cannot be allowed till the matters is adjudicated in accordance with law, and that the petitioners have to approach the competent authority for release of vehicles.
12. In support of the plea that the District Collector or authorized person is competent to seize the vehicle, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in M.MUNIYANDI AND OTHERS ..VS.. COLLECTOR, THIRUELLORE (A.I.R. 1998 MADRAS 136), wherein it has been held, that by virtue of Section 4(1) and 21(4) of the Act, and Rule 36(5)(b) and Appendices XII and XIII of the Rules 1959, the vehicles used for transporting minerals illegally can be seized.
13. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:-
4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease:-
(1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement:
Provided Further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of Inida, the Indian Bureau of Mines, (the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research) of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956:
Provided also that nothing in this sub section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.
(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
(2) No reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
(3) Any State Government may, after prior consultation with the Central Government and in accordance with the rules made under Section 18, (undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations with respect to any mineral specified in the First Schedule in any area within that State which is not already held under any reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease".
14. Any violation of Provision of Section 4 of the Act is subject to penalties as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:-
"21. Penalties:-
(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-
section (1A) of Section 4 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Any rules made under any provision of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention. (3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorized authority may, if necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser from the land.
(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other things, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court. (5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, any may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable."
15. Section 22 of the Act lays down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.
16. Section 23-A of the Act makes the offence compoundable by the persons authorized to file complaint under Section 22 of the Act.
17. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Act, the Tamil Nadu Government has framed the Rules called The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
18. Rule 36-A of the Rules 1959 deals with Penalties, which reads as follows:-
"36-A Penalties:- (1) Whenever any person contravenes the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act in any land, enhanced seigniorage fee upto a maximum of fifteen times the normal rate subject to a minimum of twenty five thousand rupees shall be charged and recovered from that person by the District Collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be, or in the alternative, he shall be liable to be punished as provided in sub- section (1) of Section 21 of the Act.
Provided that in respect of minor minerals, namely, building and road construction stones including gravel, ordinary sand, earth and turf, ordinary clay including silt, brick and tile clay, the powers and duties exercisable and dischargeable by the District Collectors under this sub-rule shall be exercisable and dischargeable by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within their respective jurisdiction.(2)
(3) Whenever any person raises without any lawful authority any mineral from any land, the District Collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be, may recover from such person the mineral so raised or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, area assessment, seigniorage fee or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such person without any lawful authority:
Provided that in respect of minor minerals, namely, building and road construction stones including gravel, ordinary sand, earth and turf, ordinary clay including silt, brick and tile clay, the powers and duties exercisable and dischargeable by the District Collectors under this sub-rule shall be exercisable and dischargeable by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within their respective jurisdiction.
(4) Whenever any person contravenes the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 and in unlawful possession of any land, the Director of Geology and Mining or the Chief Conservator of Forests, as the case may be, or the District Collector or the District Forest Officer, as the case may be, shall, after giving notice, charge and recover from that person double the rate of the lease amount where the area was held under lease through public auction or its renewal or tender or double the total seigniorage fee where the area was held under lease through any other provisions of these Rules, or in the alternative, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both and in the case of continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention:
Provided that in respect of minor minerals, namely, building and road construction stones including gravel, ordinary sand, earth and turf, ordinary clay including silt, brick and tile clay, the powers and duties exercisable and dischargeable by the District Collectors under this sub-rule shall be exercisable and dischargeable by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within their respective jurisdiction.
(5) Whenever any person contravenes any provisions other than sub-
rule (1) of Rule 10 of these Rules or conditions of a quarrying permit or quarrying lease granted under these Rules, the Director of Geology and Mining or the Chief Conservator of Forest, as the case may be, or the District Collector or the District Forests Officer, as the case may be, shall after giving notice, charge and that person and recover from him enhanced seigniorage fee upto a maximum of fifteen times the normal rate subject to a minimum of twenty five thousand rupees or in the alternative, he shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both and in the case of continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention:
Provided that in respect of minor minerals, namely, building and road construction stones including gravel, ordinary sand, earth and turf, ordinary clay including silt, brick and tile clay, the powers and duties exercisable and dischargeable by the District Collectors under this sub-rule shall be exercisable and dischargeable by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within their respective jurisdiction.
(6) No machinery shall be used for quarrying sand from river beds, except with the permission of the Secretary to Government, Industries Department or any other authority or Officer, as may be authorized by him in his behalf, who may grant such permission if use of such machinery will not be detrimental to ecology."
19. Further more, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 15 of the Act, the Rules called The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules, 2011 has been framed, and published under Section 23(C)(1), which define "Authorised Officer" means the District Collector of the district concerned or such other officer as may be authorized by the Government.
20. Rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Rules 2011 reads as under:-
8. Seizure and Confiscation :- (1) Every grantee of registration permitted to stock or transport minerals shall allow the authorized officer or authority empowered by the Government under the provisions of the Act or competent authority to enter and inspect any premises where the mineral is kept or stored or transported, including the premises where imported minerals are kept or stored.
(2) Every officer seizing mineral under these Rules shall prepare the list of mineral seized and deliver a copy thereof signed by him to the person found in possession of such minerals. Thereafter the officer shall hand over such property to the concerned Tahsildar for safe custody. The Tahsildar shall fix the property with seal and send information to the District Collector for taking action.
9. Custody of the seized property:- (1) The authorised officer shall keep the seized material or property under the custody of the Institution belonging to the Government or any responsible official of the Government as far as possible. Under normal circumstances, if illegal storage or transportation of mineral is noticed, the mineral may be handed over to the concerned Tahsildar with information to the officer in charge of nearby police station in writing. (2) If the penalty is not paid within a week from the date of receipt of the copy of the proceedings, the seized property shall become the Government property and the same will be auctioned by the officer authorized by the District Collector in this regard.
10. Penalties :- (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of the Rules, sells or stores minerals except under and in accordance with the Registration Certificate of Registrar of who transports the minerals not in accordance with transport permit issued shall be punishable with a penalty upto a maximum of Rs.25,000/- by an order of the District Collector concerned.
(2) Any person who transports / stores mineral and takes minerals to a place except to the destination specified in the Transport permit, shall be punishable with the imprisonment for one year or with fine which may be extended up to Rs.25,000/- or with both, if the District Collector or Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within the respective jurisdiction files FIR and tries the case in a competent Court of Law in the District".
21. A reading of the provisions of the Act, the Rules 1959 and the Rules 2011 makes it clear, that any violation of Section 4 of the Act, imposes restriction on the mining operations in any area, except as per the terms and conditions of the permit or license. It also imposes restriction on transporting, storage of any mineral in violation of the provisions of the Act. The violation of the provisions under Section 4 of the Act are punishable under Section 21 of the Act. Section 21(4A) of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Court i.e., the learned Judicial Magistrate to confiscate the vehicle, whereas Section 22 of the Act provides the procedure for taking cognizance of the offence under the Act.
22. The reading of Rule 36-A of the Rules 1959 gives the power to the District Collector of the District Forest Officer to punish the offender, but the jurisdiction of the District Collector or District Forest Officer is only to recover the minerals, and in case, it was disposed of, to recover the price thereof, as well as to impose penalty thereon. But, no power has been given to the District Collector or the District Forest Officer to confiscate the vehicle.
23. This provision is further clarified in the Rules 2011. Where again, the power is given to seize the mineral after preparing the list and handing over to the persons guilty of offence, and thereafter hand over the property to the Tahsildar.
24. Rule 9 of the Rules 2011 is also silent about the seizure, and confiscation of vehicle used for transportation. If any doubt is there, the same was clarified under Rule 10 of the Rules 2011, where the power to impose penalty is with the District Collector, or the Revenue Divisional Officer, but any punishment of imprisonment or confiscation of vehicle is, with the Court and not with the District Collector.
25. Therefore, a joint reading of the Act, the Rules 1959 and the Rules 2011 makes it clear, that though the Inspector of Police or the Revenue Divisional Officer can seize the vehicle, but cannot retain its possession, as no power has been given to deal with the vehicle, as the same vests exclusively with the learned Judicial Magistrate.
26. In case, the Authorities decide to take any action with regard to the vehicle, then it becomes their solemn duty to file a complaint as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act before the Competent Court.
27. In any case, the very fact of seizure of vehicle would amount to a prima facie decision by the Authorities under the Act, the Rules 1959 and the Rules 2011 to have the matter adjudicated through Court by filing a complaint with the learned Judicial Magistrate. Otherwise, they can proceed to seize the mines and minerals and impose penalties without dealing with the vehicle.
28. The power of the Authority, therefore with regard to the transport vehicle is limited to seizure and for production before the Court. They have no power to thereafter retain the vehicles.
29. It is expected that the Authorities, under the Act in case decide to prosecute the person under Section 22 of the Act by filing a complaint, a necessary complaint be filed within seven days of incident as any delay in registration or filing of the criminal case vitiates the criminal proceedings.
30. The remedy with the petitioners, therefore is to move the learned Judicial Magistrate within whose jurisdiction offence was said to have been committed, for release of the vehicles, where the case is pending or even before the case is filed by the competent authorities, as the seizure is deemed to be a prima facie decision to file the complaint in Court.
31. In case, any such application is so moved, it is directed that the learned Judicial Magistrate shall pass an order, in accordance with law, and if so found to release the vehicle to the owner, subject to any condition.
32. The learned Judicial Magistrate has the power under the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, to deal with the vehicle, pending confiscation proceedings.
33. The learned Judicial Magistrate the authority to release the vehicle under Section 21(4A) of the Act as well as under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
34. At the sake of repetition, it is ordered that the learned Judicial Magistrate should take minimum time, in passing an order with regard to release of vehicle, i.e., even without waiting for the filing of the complaint by the Authorities under Section 22 of the Act.
35. In view of the above position of law explained, all these writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners, to move an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, having jurisdiction over the place where the offence is said to have committed, for release of vehicles under Section 21(4A) of the Act read with 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Dpn/-
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Tahsildar, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.