Jharkhand High Court
Brahmaputra Metallics Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2456 of 2020
Brahmaputra Metallics Limited, having its office at village Kamta,
block Gola, P.O. Gola and P.S. Gola, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand and
administrative office at 401, Commerce Tower, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O
and P.S. Daily Market, District Ranchi, Jharkhand represented through
its Director namely Aarsh Sahu, aged about 39 years, son of Kumud
Prasad Sahu, resident of 80, Kali Mandir Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O.,
P.S. Daily Market, District- Ranchi. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh having its office at Jharkhand
State Highway 2, Ramgarh Cantonment, P.O. Ramgarh and P.S.
Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
4. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh having its office at Chhatarmaru,
Ramgarh, P.O. Ramgarh and P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh,
Jharkhand. ............ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
------
C.A.V on 13.08.2025 Pronounced on 04/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the letter no. 562/Khanan, Ramgarh dated 15.07.2020 (Annexure-11) whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh has imposed penalty upon 2025:JHHC:27138-DB the petitioner company to the tune of Rs. 86,01,067/- for alleged illegal transportation of minerals.
AND b. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondents to make appropriate provision in the Jharkhand Integrated Mines and Minerals Management System (JIMMS) portal so as to enable the petitioner to apply for dealer registration at Gola Railway Siding, Kuju Railway Siding, Barkakana Railway Siding and Bhurkunda Railway Siding and also permit it to generate transport challans for transporting coal from the above railway sidings to its plant situated at Village Kamta, Block Gola, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand and till then restrain the respondents from imposing any penalty on transportation of minerals from the above railway sidings to its plant."
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) The petitioner-company established a manufacturing unit of Sponge Iron and MS Billets in District Ramgarh, State of Jharkhand which is operational and the petitioner company procures the raw materials such as coal, iron ores, dolomite etc. from various companies/individuals for processing and manufacturing Sponge Iron and MS Billets. The petitioner company primarily purchases coal from the Central Coalfields Limited through e-auction process and under five Fuel Supply Agreement (FSA) entered between the petitioner and the Central Coalfields Limited.
(ii) The coal purchased from the Central Coalfields Limited is transported through the rail mode to different railway sidings from where the coal is transported through truck to the plant of the petitioner located within the radius of 2 2025:JHHC:27138-DB 500 metres and the consignment of coal was transported under valid permits and the final destination is shown to be the plant of the petitioner.
(iii) The petitioner company on 24.04.2018 submitted an application before the Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand for grant of Certificate of Dealer Registration and the Form 'B' Certificate of Dealer Registration was granted in favour of the petitioner company on 10.07.2019 for purchase/procurement of Soil (Morom), Stone (Chips), Sand, Iron Ore, Dolomite, Coal and Limestone from the firms/persons mentioned in the certificate issued under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (" in short, Rules of 2017").
(iv) Further, the petitioner company purchased 3827.80 tonnes coal (valuing Rs.1,11,09,664/-) from the Central Coalfields Limited for which GST invoice dated 08.07.2020 was generated by the Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar Area and for that the petitioner company paid Rs. 10,10,000/- to the Commercial Department, Eastern Central Railways for transportation of coal from CCL, Bachra Siding, Chatra to Gola Railway siding, Ramgarh for which money receipt dated 09.07.2020 was issued in favour of the petitioner company.
(v) Thereafter, an e-Way Bill dated 09.07.2020 was generated through GST website for transportation of Coal and Coal D Grade by rail from CCL, Bachra Siding, Bachra, 3 2025:JHHC:27138-DB Chatra, Jharkhand to the plant of petitioner company which was valid till 11.07.2020 for which total invoice amount to the tune of Rs. 1,15,99,190.96/- (inclusive tax amount) was generated.
(vi) The petitioner company through an email dated 09.07.2020 requested the Central Coalfields Limited to provide the mining challan for the coal dispatch by railway rake Piparwar/Bachra siding consequently, the Central Coalfields Limited through an e-mail dated 10.07.2020 informed the petitioner company that the CCL has already implemented generation of mining challan under road mode dispatch, however, the process of obtaining mining challan under rail mode is in process.
(vii) Further, in a meeting dated 10.07.2020, District Mining Officer, Ramgarh directed the petitioner company to obtain storage license at various railway sidings. Thereafter petitioner company vide an e-mail dated 11.07.2020 shared the details about the ores and minerals procured by the petitioner company and further requested JIMMS to amend the existing license granted to the company for addition of railway siding to which the company was asked to contact the Mining Department.
(viii) Thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh vide letter dated 11.07.2020 directed the petitioner company to obtain JIMMS generated e-transport challan for transit of coal 4 2025:JHHC:27138-DB from Railway siding, Gola Road to the plant of the petitioner company latest by 13.07.2020.
(ix) In response thereto the petitioner company vide letter dated 13.07.2020 requested the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh not to impose any penalty as the company had necessary invoices, railway receipts, e-way receipt and other relevant documents, however, due to some technical reasons the e-transport challan could not be generated from JIMMS portal and further requested the officer to allow the transit of minerals from Railway siding to the plant of petitioner company till the matter is resolved by the JIMMS, C.C.L and Mining Department.
(x) The petitioner company vide letter dated 14.07.2020 also requested the Secretary Mines and Geology Department to consider the matter and issue necessary direction to JIMMS and District Mining Officer, Ramgarh for unhindered movement of mines and minerals from railway sidings and non-imposition of penalty till the issues are resolved and the said letter was also forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Director Mines, District Mining Officer Ramgarh, OSD to Commissioner, Secretary, Department of Industries and JIMMS.
(xi) It is the case of the petitioner company that inspite of the aforesaid facts, the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh vide letter no. 562/Khanan, Ramgarh dated 15.07.2020 imposed a penalty of Rs. 86,01,067/-purportedly in terms of Rule 13 of 5 2025:JHHC:27138-DB Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 and Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, Act of 1957/MMDR Act, 1957) and further directed the petitioner company to deposit the above amount within 15 days.
(xii) Thereafter, the petitioner company vide letter dated 17.07.2020 requested the District Collector, Ramgarh to revoke the penalty imposed and further to give necessary instruction to JIMMS for generating e-challan and unhindered movement of minerals from the rake of railway siding to the plant of company.
(xiii) The petitioner vide an email dated 17.07.2020 sought the advice from JIMMS for generation of e-challan for transporting minerals received by rake from the railway siding to the plant and pursuant thereto JIMMS through an email dated 17.07.2020 asked the petitioner company to apply onward transport from the login id by giving the source of mineral (permit number) and when the concerned DMO permits then the e-challan could be generated. In furtherance to the said advice, the petitioner company generated Form C1 in terms of Rule 9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 and submitted the said Form C1 on 18.07.2020 before the DMO stating therein the details of purchase of coal from CCL, Piparwar Project, but, the same was not accepted by District 6 2025:JHHC:27138-DB Mining Officer, Ramgarh as the name of railway siding was not mentioned and when the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh contacted JIMMS, it was informed that the matter is under consideration before the Department.
(xiv) Thereafter, JIMMS through an email dated 19.07.2020 provided a new link for weighbridge registration, which is required for generating transport challan. However, since the Form C1 was rejected by District Mining Officer, Ramgarh the petitioner through an email dated 20.07.2020 thereby requested JIMMS to look into the matter so that no penalty is imposed.
(xv) The Central Coalfields Limited through an email dated 20.07.2020 informed the petitioner company that process for registration of its sidings as 'Dealers' at JIMMS portal of State Government for rake wise generation of online mining challan has already started and further informed that CCL has been taking all steps to start generation of rake wise mining challan for rail dispatches at the earliest.
(xvi) It is pleaded that the petitioner company vide letter dated 22.07.2020 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh to grant permission for shifting of minerals/ raw materials from railway sidings to the plant premises without the e-transporting challan till the matter is resolved in view of the fact that the petitioner company have been running the plant with lot of difficulty amidst COVID-19 crisis due to lack of raw materials.
7
2025:JHHC:27138-DB (xvii) Further, the petitioner vide letter dated 23.07.2020 intimated the Director, Mines and Geology Department that the petitioner is unable to generate e-transport challan from JIMMS portal and with the present license the petitioner is not in a position to add all railway sidings in JIMMS portal as advised by District Mining Officer and further sought help from the Director, Mines and JIMMS for generation of e- transport challan.
(xviii) The petitioner through email dated 25.07.2020 informed JIMMS about the problems being faced by the company while processing the addition of railway sidings for the purpose of generation of e-transport challan. The following issues were highlighted:
(i) Fresh application being filed by the petitioner not allowed with a message that ID is already registered.
(ii) JIMMS portal is not permitting the petitioner to apply for grant of license for both the processing and storage purposes.
(xix) However, the assistance sought from JIMMS in filing an application for addition of railway siding in the license for transportation but the filing of fresh application is turned down with the message that "PAN is already registered" due to which the petitioner is unable to generate e-transport challan.
(xx) Further, it is stated that while reapplying for addition of railway siding, the portal of JIMMS is showing that no record is found, thereby making it impossible for the 8 2025:JHHC:27138-DB petitioner company to obtain e-transport challan and in spite of several positive attempts by the petitioner, e-transport challan could not be generated from JIMMS portal.
Consequently, the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh advised the petitioner to allot the coal to the transporter for generation of e-transport challan.
(xxi) Thereafter the petitioner company on 06.07.2020 executed a work order in favour of M/s Kaal Bhairav Projects Private Limited for transportation of coal/pellet and iron from Gola Road Railway Siding to the plant of the petitioner and pursuant to the application dated 11.07.2020 Form 'B' Certificate of Dealer Registration was granted in favour of M/s Kaal Bhairav Projects Private Limited on 23.07.2020. (xxii) The petitioner company received imported coal from Adani Enterprises Limited at Gola Railway siding, however, the petitioner could not generate e-transport challan, further, as per the advice of District Mining Officer, the petitioner company vide letter dated 02.08.2020 requested the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh to allot coal quantity in the ID of M/s Kaal Bhairav Projects Pvt. Ltd. for generation of e- transport challan for shifting coal from Gola Railway Siding to the plant of the petitioner.
(xxiii) Later on, the petitioner company vide email dated 06.08.2020 sought an advice from JIMMS as to whether there is any provision for transfer of coal to the authorized transporter, who has storage license at Gola Railway Station 9 2025:JHHC:27138-DB for generation of e-transport challan, but instead of resolving the difficulty being faced by the petitioner company in generation of e-transport challan by the District Mining Officer who is a competent officer under the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, the concerned officer has given advise beyond the scope of the aforesaid Rules.
(xxiv) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner which is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and MS Billets and is an industry which is based on mineral was required to obtain a dealer registration in terms of the Rules of 2017. There is no provision in the Rules of 2017, which would authorise the petitioner to apply for two or more dealer license for more than one location. Under the Rules the petitioner or for that matter any dealer cannot to generate a transport challan in terms of Rule 9 from the JIMMS portal for transport of minerals from a place other than the area / location for which such a licence has been granted. In other words, the petitioner can only generate transport challans if the mineral is to be transported from the premises of the petitioner to another place but the petitioner cannot generate a transport challan from a place which is different from its plant location.
(xxv) Further, it is stated that in order to transport the coal purchased from Central Coalfields Ltd, the railway rakes are used. The nearest railway siding where the coal is offloaded 10 2025:JHHC:27138-DB is situated at a distance of 500 mts (approx.) from the petitioner's plant. In order to transport the coal offloaded at the railway siding, trucks are used by the petitioner which are deployed by various transporters. The purchase of coal and the consequent transportation is done under the challan is generated by Central Coalfields Ltd. There is no provision in the present system which would permit the petitioner to generate a transport challan for transportation of minerals from the Railway siding to its plant. As a matter of fact, from the commencement of commercial operation of the plant till date no officer of the State Government had doubted the veracity of the transport made by the petitioner. There is no provision in the Rules of 2017, which specifically deals with the aforesaid situation i.e. transportation of coal after offloading at a railway siding to the plant of the end user. In absence of any rule which prohibits such transportation no penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents.
(xxvi) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondents the problems being faced by it in generating transit permits on the JIMMS portal but till date no corrective measures have been taken by the respondents in improving their system so as to accommodate generation of transport permits from a railway siding up to end-users plant. Even the Central Coalfields Ltd has informed the petitioner that they are in the process of obtaining a dealer 11 2025:JHHC:27138-DB license from the State Government for its sidings. This clearly shows that till date there was no insistence/provision for obtaining dealer licence for a railway siding. (xxvii) Thus, having regard to the settled principle that law does not insist for compliance of a legal provision if the performance is impossible, the petitioner cannot be held to have violated any provision of the Rules of 2017 or the MMDR Act, 1957. Further it is trite that law does not compel one to do an act, which cannot be possibly performed. In the instant case the above principles are squarely applicable to the facts and hence it is submitted that the petitioner could not have been penalised for allegedly failing to transport the coal under a transport challan as there was no provision which would have enabled the petitioner or any other authority concerned to generate transport challan for transportation of the coal after the same was offloaded at a railway siding. (xxviii) Further, the District Mining Officer had no jurisdiction and / or competence to impose the penalty by the impugned order. The 2017 Rules read with the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 do not empower the District Mining Officer to impose any penalty even if there is a violation of the 2017 Rules. The power to punish has been entrusted to the Courts by the Rules of 2017. So far as section 21 (5) of MMDR Act, 1957 is concerned the applicability of the said provision is not attracted in the case of alleged illegal transportation but is confined to illegal mining. 12
2025:JHHC:27138-DB (xxix) It is the case of the petitioner that the power to impose a penalty in terms of the above provisions of section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 has been vested with the State Government and not the District Mining Officer. In terms of the MMDR Act, 1957 any officer of the State cannot exercise the powers conferred upon the State Government unless such power is specifically delegated by issuing a notification and publishing the same in the official gazette.
(xxx) Further prior to the issuance of the impugned order neither any show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor the petitioner was granted any opportunity of hearing by the District Mining Officer.
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the present writ petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 15.07.2020 mainly on the ground that the District Mining Officer has no jurisdiction to impose the demand upon the present petitioner. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned decision issued under the signature of District Mining Officer:
(i)The District Mining Officer is having no jurisdiction to issue such demand.
(ii) There is no provision conferring power upon the District Mining Officer and Executive Authority to impose any punishment as provided under section 21 (5) of the Act of 1957, rather such power vested upon the Court. Therefore, 13 2025:JHHC:27138-DB decision so taken by issuance of the impugned order in the light of the provision under section 21 (5) of the Act by the District Mining Officer is per se illegal.
(iii) The aforesaid issue has been considered by the co-
ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in W.P(C) No.2604 of 2021 wherein the demand issued by the District Mining Officer in the light of the conferment of power under section 21(5) of the Act has been held to be without jurisdiction.
(iv) It has been contended that if the content of Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 will be considered, then the same being in the nature of punishment which can only be inflicted by the learned competent Court having criminal jurisdiction.
5. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from an error. Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
6. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds:
(i) The impugned order dated 15.07.2020 issued by the District Mining Officer although said to be issued in violation to the provision of section 21(5) of the Act but actually it has not been issued in violation of section 21(5), rather the said demand has been issued under section Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017.14
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
(ii) It has been contended that argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner is absolutely on the wrong premise and in the backdrop of presumption that the impugned order has been issued in consequence of the institution of the criminal case as per the provision as contained under section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 but that is not the fact herein, rather the admitted fact as would be evident from the pleadings made on behalf of the writ petitioner that it is merely a demand in terms of the provision as contained under Rule 54(5) of JMMC Rule, 2004.
(iii) It has been submitted that what is being contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that can be said to be available if any violation has been surfaced and in consequence thereof the State authority has proceeded under section 21 (1) then only the power as conferred either under sub-section 21(4) or (4A) is to be taken into consideration thereof.
(iv) It has been submitted so far as the reference made in the impugned order of section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 the same has wrongly been referred but merely because the wrong reference of provision of law has been made in the impugned order the validity of the said order cannot be said to lost its force, rather the important thing is to be taken into consideration is actual conferment of power as has been confirmed by virtue of provision of Rule 54 (5) of JMMC Rules, 2004 which has been invoked in view of the of the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 where it has been provided that any person who in contravenes of any of the provision of these rules, or buys or sells 15 2025:JHHC:27138-DB or stores minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers registration or who transports the mineral except as mentioned in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport challan shall be punishable as per provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004 and as amended from time to time.
(v) The contention, therefore, has been made that District Mining Officer has conferred with the power as would be evident from the Rule 54(5) of JMMC Rules, 2004.
(vi) The learned Advocate General has submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Special Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of "RajKumar Sahu V. State of M.P and Others" reported in 2019 (2) M.P.L.J 438 upon which he has heavily relied upon.
7. The learned Advocate General, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Response to the above submission on behalf of the Petitioner:
8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in response to the aforesaid contention has submitted that there is no question of considering the judgment passed by another Hon'ble High Court even of the larger Forum if this Court having the same Forum has passed an order dated 08.07.2025 in W.P.(C) 2604 of 2021 titled "Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors." wherein it has been observed that respondent no.4 (District Mining Officer, Palamau) was required to make complaint before the 16 2025:JHHC:27138-DB concerned Judicial Magistrate or before the Special Court, if any, constituted under section 30-B of the Act, 1957 who is empowered to take cognizance in the matter for imposing penalty under rule 54(5) of the Rules, 2004.
Analysis:
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit as also the finding recorded in the impugned order passed by the District Mining Officer.
10. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that no criminal case has been instituted and if that be so, then where is the question of proceeding said to be initiated under section 21(5) of the Act of 1957.
11. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of both the parties is required to consider the following issues:
(i) Whether merely by making reference of wrong provision in the order passed by the authority can it be said to lost its force if the concerned authority is having the power conferred under the Statute?
(ii) Whether the judgment upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner passed by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 in W.P(C) No.2604 of 2021 is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as per the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner as also the learned Advocate General by making out a case of institution of no criminal case.17
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
(iii) Whether the action of the State in inflicting punishment of imposing penalty in terms of money from the provision of Rule 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 as provided under Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 can be said to be just and proper in absence of any provision to inflict punishment under the Rule 2017 in a case of illegal storage of the mines products (coal)?
12. Since these issues are interlinked and, as such, are being considered together hereinafter. But, before consideration of the aforesaid issues the legal provision is required to be considered under MMDR Act, 1957, the JMMC Rules, 2004 and Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
13. The Act of 1957 has been enacted to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.
14. The object of MMDR Act 1957 has been taken note by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 499 wherein it has been observed as under:
"84. Briefly therefore, the overall purpose and objective of the MMDR Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder is to ensure that mining operations are carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of responsibility including responsibility in protecting and preserving the environment and the flora of the area. Through this process, the holder of a mining lease is obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the 18 2025:JHHC:27138-DB EPA as well as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and also by necessary implication, the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short "the FC Act"). Exploitation of the natural resources is ruled out. If the holder of a mining lease does not adhere to the provisions of the statutes or the rules or the terms and conditions of the mining lease, that person is liable to incur penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. In addition thereto, Section 4-A of the MMDR Act which provides for the termination of a mining lease is applicable. This provides that where the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, prevention of pollution, etc. then the Central Government may request the State Government to prematurely terminate a mining lease.
15. The reference of the definition as contained under section 3, particularly, section 3 (hc) needs to be made herein which defines a "Special Court" which means a Court of Sessions designated as Special Court under sub-section (1) of section 30B of the Act of 1957.
16. Section 30B of the Act 1957 provides for constitution of Special Court in which the State Government has been conferred with the power, for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the sub-section 1 or sub-section (1A) of Section 4, constitutes, by notification as many Special Court as may be necessary for such area/areas as may be specified in the notification. 19
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
17. Section 15 of the Act of 1957 also needs to be referred herein which confers power upon the State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals, for ready reference the same is being quoted hereunder as:
15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals.―(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for, regulating the grant of 3 [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith.
4 [(1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:―
(a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be made and the fees to be paid therefor;
(b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgement of the receipt of any such applications may be sent;
(c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the same land are received within the same day;
(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority by which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be granted or renewed;
(e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions;
(f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions to persons deputed by the Government for the purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining operations;
(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be payable;
(h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be protected (whether by way of payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such party is prejudicially affected by reason of any prospecting or mining operations;
(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of 20 2025:JHHC:27138-DB rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the quarrying or mining lease;
(j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a quarry lease, mining lease or other mineral concession may be transferred;
(k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads power transmission lines, tramways, railways, serial rope ways, pipelines and the making of passage for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry or mining lease or other mineral concession;
(l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act;
(m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of quarry or mining leases or other mineral concessions and the authority to which such reports and statements shall be submitted;
(n) the period within which and the manner in which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority under these rules may be made, the fees to be paid therefore, and the powers of the revisional authority; and
(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.] (2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made by a state Government regulating the grant of 1 [quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions] in respect of minor minerals which are in force immediately before the commencement of these Act shall continue in force.
2 [(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay 3 [royalty or dead rent, whichever is more] in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub- lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals:
Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of 3 [royalty or dead rent] in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of 4 [three] years.] 5 [(4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section (3), the State Government may, by notification, make rules for regulating the provisions of this Act for the following, namely:―
(a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining under sub-
section (2) of section 9B;
(b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral Foundation under sub-section (3) of section 9B; and
(c) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation by concession holders of minor minerals under section 15A.]" 21
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
18. Section 21 of the Act of 1957 also needs to refer herein which contains the provision for inflicting penalties in case of contravention of the provision of sub-section 1 or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area, for ready reference section 21 is being quoted hereunder as:
"21. Penalties.― [(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. (2) Any rule 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 two years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may extend to fifty thousand 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 authorised in this behalf by that Government and the State Government or such authorised 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 thing, 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, and 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."
1 [(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.] 2 [Explanation.--On and from the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021, the expression "raising,transporting or causing to raise or 22 2025:JHHC:27138-DB transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transportany mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence 3 [exploration licence] or in contravention of the rules made under section 23C.]
19. It is evident from the provision of section 21 which is having six sub-rules and starts with the rules to deal with issue of contravenes of provision of sub-section (1A) of section 4 and in such circumstances the concern will be punishable of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area.
20. We are skipping the provision of sub-section (2) and sub- section (3) since, the issue in the present case is of illegal transportation which has been dealt with under sub-section 4 of section 21 wherein it has been provided that 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 thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered on this behalf.
21. Sub-section (4A) of Section 21 thereof provides that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle, or any other thing seized under sub- section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by order of a Court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the direction of such Court.
22. Sub-section (6) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.
23
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
23. It is, thus, evident that section 21 is a Code in itself enacted to deal with the issue of contravention of provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 of the Act 1957 and for the aforesaid purpose the power has been conferred to the Court as would be evident from sub-section (4A) to deal with also the issue of transportation of the minerals by applying the provision as contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
24. The reference of the word "Court" as under sub-section (4A) has been considered to be a Special Court even as per the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench by making reference of the provision of section 30B.
25. Section 23C of the Act of 1957 provides the conferment of power to the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of mineral, which is being referred hereunder as:
[23C. Power of State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.―(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:―
(a) establishment of check-posts for checking of minerals under transit; (b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the quantity of mineral being transported;
(c) regulation of mineral being transported from the area granted under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or a quarrying licence or a permit, in whatever name the permission to excavate minerals, has been given;
(d) inspection, checking and search of minerals at the place of excavation or storage or during transit;24
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
(e) maintenance of registers and forms for the purposes of these rules; (f) the period within which and the authority to which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority be preferred under any rule made under this section and the fees to be paid therefore and powers of such authority for disposing of such applications; and
(g) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30, the Central Government shall have no power to revise any order passed by a State Government or any of its authorised officers or any authority under the rules made under sub-sections (1) and (2).]
26. Section 23C of the Act of 1957 contains a provision under sub-section (2)(g) wherein it has been stipulated that any other matter which is required to be or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation, storage of minerals the rule is to be framed.
27. The State Government, in exercise of power conferred under section 15 of the Act of 1957, has enacted the rule being "Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004". The said rule contains a provision under Rule 54, to which we are concerned herein, providing therein to inflict penalty for illegal transportation and unauthorized mining of the minor minerals.
28. One of the arguments, since, has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that rule 54 (5) deals with only minor minerals but as per the definition of the minerals as under section 3 (ad) of the Act of 1957 which includes all minerals except mineral oils.
29. Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 contains sub-provisions which starts from sub-provision 1 wherein it has been provided that any person, if found to be involved in carrying out the mining operation, 25 2025:JHHC:27138-DB then there will be punishment of one year or an amount of maximum Rs.50,000/- will be inflicted by way of penalty.
30. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 is relevant herein since, the same deals with the issue of transportation wherein it has been provided that if any driver of any vehicle has been found to be carrying out illegally the minerals and if failed to produce the relevant challan before the competent officer or the Director, Mines or Upper Director, Mines or Deputy Director, Mines or the District/Assistant Mining Officer or the Collector or any authorized officer delegated to the power of the State Government or he refused to allow the inspection, then maximum one year punishment or the doubled of the amount of the value of mines product or both can be imposed.
31. It is evident from the provision of Rule 2017(Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 which contains a provision under Rule 11 of search, seizure and confiscation which is being quoted hereinbelow as:
Search, Seizure and Confiscation:-( i). The following officers are authorized to stop, check, search and verify at any place/truck/Other Vehicle carrying the minerals/ore from the mine or other source or storage and seize the same as required within the jurisdiction as specified below:
(i) Additional Chief Secretary/ In the entire State.
Principal Secretary/Secretary/ Commissioner, Mines
(ii) Director of mines In the entire State.
(iii) Additional Director of mine -do-
(iv) Deputy Director of mine Within their respective jurisdiction
(v) District Collector/Deputy Within their respective jurisdiction
Commissioner
(vi) District/Assistant Mining Within their respective jurisdiction
Officer
26
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
(vii) Sub Divisional Magistrate/Any Within their respective jurisdiction /
Other officer authorized by the jurisdiction authorized by the
collector collector in the District
(viii) Mining Inspector -do-
(ix) In-charge check-gate -do-
It shall be the responsibility of the mining lessee/dealers to ensure that their carriers afford all assistance and co-operation for such inspection.
(ii) The dealer/lessee shall allow any competent authority/competent officer or any such officer authorized by competent authority to inspect the place where mining, storage and processing unit exists to verify the stocks of ore and minerals and take sample or the abstract from the records maintained by him.
(iv) Every dealer shall allow competent authority/competent officer or any officer authorised by the Director, Mines/Commissioner, Mines or Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Jharkhand to enter and inspect the premises, where the mineral is kept or stored. Inspection of such documents as desired in writing and furnishing of information as directed in writing shall be obligatory for such dealer.
(v) Every officer making a seizure, under these rules shall prepare a list of minerals, tools, equipment, vehicles or any other article, so seized and deliver a copy thereof signed by him to the person found in possession of such minerals. Such officer shall keep such seized property under proper custody with proper official seal and with detailed information.
(vi) Any minerals, tool, equipment, vehicle or any thing seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and shall be disposed of in accordance with direction of such court.
32. Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017 provides the provision to impose penalty which is being referred hereunder as:
"Penalties: (i) Any person, who contravenes any of the provision of these rules, or buys or sells or store minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of dealers registration or who transports the minerals except as mentioned in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport challan shall be punishable as per provision made under JMMC Rule, 2004 and as amended from time to time.
(ii) Whoever intentionally obstructs the competent officer or any other officer in performing his duties under these rules, shall be punishable with an imprisonment upto a term of one year or fine which may extend to Rs 25000/- or with both."
33. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 13 that any person, who contravenes any of the provision of these rules or 27 2025:JHHC:27138-DB buys or sells or stores the minerals except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers registrations or who transports the minerals except as mentioned in the transport challan shall be punishable as per the provision under JMMC Rules, 2004 and as amended from time to time. The power of appeal and revision has been provided under Rules 14 and 15 thereof.
34. It is, thus, evident after going through the provision of Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 that the power has been conferred upon the competent authority to inflict punishment in case of illegal transportation of mines products as per the provision as provided under JMMC Rules, 2004.
35. This Court, after going through all the provisions and on harmonious appreciation of all the statutory provision, i.e, the Act of 1957 or the Rule of 2004 amended in 2017 or the Rules of 2017, it is the conclusion which has been arrived at by this Court that the conferment of power in order to deal with the illegal mining operation or the illegal transportation of the mines product the State has been conferred with the power to institute a criminal case by initiating the proceeding by seizure and the report is to be submitted before the Court and thereafter the Court will to take cognizance as would be evident from the perusal of section 21 in its entirety right from sub-section (1) to sub-section (6) thereof.
36. The State has also been conferred with the power in terms of the provision of section 15 of the Act of 1957 to enact the State Rules and by virtue of the aforesaid provision the Rule 2004 has been framed and consequently amended in the year 2017.
28
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
37. Section 23C (1) and 23 C (2) of the Act 1957 has further conferred upon the State to deal with the issue of illegal transportation of the mining products and by virtue of the said provision of the Act 1957, the Rules of 2017 has been formulated by the state of Jharkhand.
38. This Court has found by going through the provision of section 21 of the Act of 1957 by which the power has been conferred for initiation of the criminal proceeding while on the other hand the power has also been conferred upon the State to make out the rule to deal with the issue of illegal transportation along with other issues as referred in section 23C of the Act of 1957.
39. At this juncture it would be apt to refer herein that the statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. Further, it is the well-known principle of harmonious construction that effect should be given to all the provisions and a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "dead letter" is not harmonious construction, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi, (2001) 8 SCC 540. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"8. It is settled that for interpreting a particular provision of an Act, the import and effect of the meaning of the words and phrases used in the statute have to be gathered from the text, the nature of the subject-matter and the purpose and intention of the statute. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding a conflict and adopting a harmonious construction. The statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one 29 2025:JHHC:27138-DB provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect should be given to all the provisions and a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "dead letter" is not harmonious construction. With respect to law relating to interpretation of statutes this Court in Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama [(1990) 1 SCC 277] held: (SCC p. 284, para 16) "16. The paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of enactment in question. That does not mean the text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose, without reference to its nature or purpose. A statute is neither a literary text nor a divine revelation. 'Words are certainly not crystals, transparent and unchanged' as Mr Justice Holmes has wisely and properly warned. (Towne v. Eisner [245 US 418, 425 (1918)] ) Learned Hand, J., was equally emphatic when he said: 'Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid, but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them.' (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage [218 FR 547, 553] )"
40. This Court after going through the provision of the Act of 1957, therefore, is of the view, particularly, the section 23C and if under the aforesaid provision any rule has been formulated by the State to deal with the issue of illegal transportation of mining products, then it would not be just and proper only to read out the provision of section 21 of the Act of 1957, rather the Act has been formulated by the State on the strength of the power conferred under section 23C of the Act of 1957, then there must be a harmonious construction of both the provisions and once the Act has been formulated, then it will upon the wisdom of the State Government either to take recourse in case of 30 2025:JHHC:27138-DB contravention of any of the provision of the Act by taking recourse as provided under section 21 of the Act of 1957, but the Rule has been formulated herein by way of Rules of 2017 containing therein a provision of Rule 13 which deals with inflicting of penalty as per the provision as contained under JMMC Rules, 2004.
41. If the State in that circumstance has proceeded to issue demand in case of illegal transportation of mines product by taking recourse of the Rule 13 of Rules of 2017, the same cannot be said to be in violation of the jurisdiction.
42. The jurisdiction, therefore, is very much available as per the provision of Rule 13 if read together with the provision of 54 (5) of the JMMC Rule, 2004 as amended in 2017, particularly, as referred in the provision of Rule 54 as has been referred hereinabove.
43. The law is well-settled that merely because a wrong reference of provision has been made in any decision taken by the authority the same cannot vitiate the decision so taken if actual power has been conferred under the Statute.
44. The position of law is well settled that the authority cannot be allowed to act without any authority of law, otherwise, the decision if taken will be said to suffer from jurisdictional error. But, there is exception that even any decision is taken by the authority under wrong provision of law but such authority is having jurisdiction to deal with the issue, then merely by referring the wrong provision of law the decision taken by the authority cannot be held to be invalid, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal [(1982) 2 SCC 422], 31 2025:JHHC:27138-DB wherein at paragraph 5 it has been observed, which reads hereunder as:-
"5. ... ... ... It is well settled that the exercise of a power, if there is indeed a power, will be referable to a jurisdiction, when the validity of the exercise of that power is in issue, which confers validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory, though the section was not referred, and a different or a wrong section of different provisions was mentioned. See in this connection the observations in Pitamber Vajirshet v. Dhondu Navlapa [ILR (1888) 12 Bom 486, 489]. See in this connection also the observations of this Court in the case of L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO, Special Circle, Ambala Cantt. [AIR 1961 SC 200] This point has again been reiterated by this Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of M.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1329] where it was observed that it was well settled that a wrong reference to the power under which action was taken by the Government would not per se vitiate that action if it could be justified under some other power under which Government could lawfully do that act. See also the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nani Gopal Biswas v. Municipality of Howrah [AIR 1958 SC 141]."
45. The fact of the present case is also of like nature wherein the District Mining Officer having the jurisdiction to take decision to impose penalty as per the provision contained under Rule 13 of the Rule 2017 wherein such punishment is to be taken in terms of the JMMC Rule, 2004 under which as per the provision as contained under Rule 54 (5) the District Mining Officer has been conferred with such power. Therefore, this Court is of the view that making wrong reference of the provision as referred in the impugned order of 21(5) of the Act of 1957 will not vitiate the decision so taken by the authority for the reason that the District Mining Officer is having the jurisdiction in view of the discussions made hereinabove.
32
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
46. It is correct as has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that under the provision of section 21 of the Act of 1957 the penalty is to be imposed by the Court by following the procedure as laid down in the Cr.P.C. (now, Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), but the same will only be applicable in a case of institution of criminal case if it has taken decision to that effect.
47. A co-ordinate Bench in W.P(C) No. 2604 of 2021 has also considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and, therefore, there is no reason to take contrary view, rather the said judgment is only applicable in a case where the State has decided to go to institute a criminal case as provided under section 21 of the Act of 1957, then in such circumstances certainly the District Mining Officer will have no jurisdiction of any other authority as referred in the Rule 2004 will have jurisdiction due to simple reason that reference as has been made under section 21 (4A) r/w sub-section (6) thereof wherein the Court has been conferred with a power to take cognizance which admittedly cannot be by the Executive Authority.
48. We are conscious that the judgment passed by another High Court is having no binding affect upon this Court but certainly the persuasive value is there and it is also settled position of law that if a High Court is not concurring with the view of the different High Courts or another High Court, then a reason is required to be assigned by the concerned High Court as to why the judgment rendered by the another High Court is not having the persuasive value, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradip J.Mehta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 33 2025:JHHC:27138-DB Ahmedabad, (2008) 14 SCC 283, wherein, at paragraph- 23, it has been held which reads as under:--
"23. Although, the judgments referred to above were cited at the Bar in the High Court, which were taken note of by the learned Judges of the Bench of the High Court, but without either recording its agreement or dissent, it answered the two questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that the High Court should, especially in the event of its contra view or dissent, have discussed the aforesaid judgments of the different High Courts and recorded its own reasons for its contra view. We quite see the fact that the judgments given by a High Court are not binding on the other High Court(s), but all the same, they have persuasive value. Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the view taken by the other High Courts but, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefor. The judgment of the other High Courts, though not binding, have persuasive value which should be taken note of and dissented from by recording its own reasons."
49. We have considered the judgment passed by the Special Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of "RajKumar Sahu V. State of M.P and Others" (supra) and found that exactly the similar thing has been taken into consideration of the conferment of power of the State of Madhya Pradesh to proceed for inflicting punishment in case of illegal transportation of the mining product.
50. This Court, therefore, is of the view that there is no conflict in the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court or the Hon'ble Special Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, rather both are on different premise.
51. While on one hand, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P(C) No. 2604 of 2021 has passed the order on the premise of initiation of a proceeding under Rule 21(5) of the Act of 1957 perhaps for the reason 34 2025:JHHC:27138-DB that there is a reference of section 21(5) in the impugned order while the judgment passed by Hon'ble Special Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court is on the premise of a case where the State has decided to proceed for inflicting penalty in the light of Pari materia provision as contained under Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 as available herein under the provision of Rule 13 of Rule 2017.
52. The argument which has been advanced that sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 the reference of minor mineral is there and, as such, the same will be applicable only with respect to the minor minerals.
53. In response to the same, the learned Advocate General has submitted that the mineral has also been defined as per Rule 2(l) under Rule 2017 which means mineral of all types except the atomic minerals in Part-B of the Schedule-1 of the Act of 1957.
54. We have considered the aforesaid argument and after going through the definition of minerals as provided under section 3 (ad) of the Act of 1957 wherein the minerals have been defined as all minerals except mineral oils. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of Rules of 2004 which refers about the minor mineral since the action has been taken in view of the power conferred under Rule 13 of Rule 2017 wherein the mineral has been defined under Rule 2 (l) which means mineral of all types except the atomic minerals in Part-B of the Schedule-1 of the Act of 1957.
55. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the power as conferred under Rule 2017 has been taken recourse by the State as provided under Rule 13, however, the punishment as per provision 35 2025:JHHC:27138-DB made under JMMC Rules, 2004 has been referred therein and, as such, there cannot be any confusion that only with respect to the omission of punishment as provided/available the authority which has been conferred with the power is to be taken into consideration leaving aside the issue of mineral.
56. If the contention of the writ petitioner will be accepted, even in case of major mineral in the illegal transportation of such minerals are being carried out, then who will be the authority to check upon such illegal transportation, since, no power has been vested upon any Central authority or even no department in the nature of the mining department to run under the control of the Central Government is available in any State and, as such, the State if has come out with a provision by defining the word minerals said to be in consonance with the definition as under
the Act of 1957 as provided under section 3 (ad), then merely because the reference of minor mineral is there it is not available for the writ petitioner to take the ground that the concerned authority as referred in Rule 54(5) is only to deal with the minor minerals leaving aside the major minerals.
57. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the action of the State is also considered to be without jurisdiction in absence of any power as provided under the provision of Rule of 2017 to inflict punishment in terms of money by invoking the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 but the State has inflicted punishment in terms of money by taking aid of the provision of Rule 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 which cannot be said to be permissible. Thereby the order 36 2025:JHHC:27138-DB of demand in terms of money is also without jurisdiction in terms of the aforesaid ground.
58. While, on the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State has contended that the said decision taken by the State cannot be unjust and improper, rather it will be in accordance with law in view of the stipulation made under the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 wherein the illegal storage of mines product has been provided to be punishable as per the provision incorporated under the JMMC Rule, 2004.
59. It has been submitted that under the provision of Rule of 2017, there is no independent provision to punish and that is the reason it has been stipulated in Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 that such offence will be punishable and punishment will be in terms of the provision under the JMMC Rule, 2004.
60. The Statute since provides to inflict punishment in terms of money or by instituting a criminal case which can be instituted under the provision of Rule 54 (1) but it depends upon the wisdom of the State that instead of instituting a case under the provision of Rule 54(1) of the JMMC Rule, 2004 while imposing punishment in terms of money and by not instituting a criminal case as per the provision of Rule 13, rather directly invoking the jurisdiction conferred to the State authority under the provision of Rule 54(5) of the JMMC Rule, 2004, the same cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error.
61. The submission has been made by way of reason that since the State is the custodian of the major and minor minerals and, as such, it is upon the State to put deterrent in the illegal transportation or illegal 37 2025:JHHC:27138-DB storage of the mines product, coal herein, and in that view of the matter wisdom of the State, if the decision has been taken to punish the offender in terms of money, then the same cannot be said that the State has acted without any jurisdiction, rather the State will not act on the basis of the same and institute criminal case, then it is the State who will be at loss in case of illegal transportation of mining product and illegal storage thereof.
62. Another reason has been shown that if the statutory provision is there, then on the basis of the purposive construction of the statutory provision the conclusion is to be arrived at by taking into consideration the statutory provision as contained in the Act/Rule so as to achieve the object and intent.
63. It has further been submitted that the litigant cannot permitted to instruct the State to choose the particular proceeding to deal with the cases of illegal transportation or illegal storage, rather it depends upon the State.
64. The learned Advocate General has further submitted that what has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State is not remediless, rather the State can take recourse either on section 21(1) of the Act of 1957 or Rule 54(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004 and, hence, the question of putting a deterrent to the illegal doer the proper recourse as available under the parent Act read with Rule of 2004 as available under section 21(1) or Rule 54(1) ought to have been taken.
38
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
65. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issue.
66. The Statutory provision has already been referred herein above and based upon the same we are proceeding to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties on the aforesaid issues.
67. As we have already referred hereinabove that section 21(1) of the Act of 1957 is having the word, "punishable with imprisonment". The same is the reference made under section 21(2), which suggests, that in case of violation of the provision of Section 4 (1A) of the MMDR ACT, 1957 the case is to be instituted under section 21(1) before the concerned Court for the purpose of inflicting punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area or both.
68. The provision as contained under section 54 (1) as provided under the JMMC Rules, 2004, provide punishment for imprisonment for a period of one year or fine of Rs. 50,000/- or both.
69. Rule 54 (5) of Rule 2004 is having with the reference of the competent officer wherein the power has been conferred to impose punishment to the extent of one year. However, it is also referred therein that the concerned competent authority will raise demand and if the irregularity will be committed frequently then the vehicle which will be seized is to release if the undertaking is furnished by the concerned of appearing before the competent Court of Law.
70. It is admitted fact and the learned Advocate General has also admitted that under the provision of Rule of 2017 which has been brought in the light of the provision of section 23C of the Act 1957 for 39 2025:JHHC:27138-DB the purpose of looking into the issue of illegal transportation and illegal storage, since, it comes under the fold of the 23C(g), i.e, for any other purposes the legislation is to be formulated.
71. The object of the Rule of 2017 and as per the caption head it is very apparent that the purpose for its enactment is to deal with the illegal transportation as also the illegal storage of the mine products.
72. The competent authority/competent officer has been conferred with the power as provided under Rule 11(i) to (v) of the Rule of 2017. The provision as contained under 11 of the Rule of 2017 is being referred for the purpose of exercise of the power of the competent authority to deal with the issue of illegal transportation and illegal storage of the mining product.
73. Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 provides for penalty in case of intercepting any offence of irregularity of any illegal transportation or storage of the coal mines, then the same has been stipulated to be punishable and punishment is to be provided as per the provision as contained under the JMMC Rules 2004.
74. No doubt, therefore, under the Rule of 2017 there is no provision carved out by making reference of any penal provision and that is the reason the reference has been made that the offence of illegal transportation or illegal storage is punishable as per the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004.
75. No doubt, the JMMC Rule, 2004 does not contain any provision to punish the illegal doers who have been found to be involved in illegal transportation or illegal storage of the mine product, 40 2025:JHHC:27138-DB coal herein, save and except the provision as contained under 54 of the JMMC Rules, 2004.
76. Rule 54 starts from the sub-provision (1) wherein the punishment has been provided of one year imprisonment or a fine or Rs. 50,000/- thereafter the sub-provision (2), (3), (4) provide seizure of the vehicles/tools and arresting of the concerned person by the competent officer whereas the quantum of punishment has been provided under Rule 54 (5).
77. Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 reads as under:
"[54, लघु खनिज ों के अिानिकृत उत्खिि तथा परिवहि के नलए दण्ड (1) क ई भी व्यक्ति, ज इि नियम ों के नवरूद्ध लघु खनिज ों का उत्खिि किते है अथवा उसकी ओि से यनद नकसी एजेण्ट, मैिेजि, कममचािी अथवा ठे केदाि द्वािा ऐसा उत्खिि, अथवा परिवहि नकया जाता है त ऐसा प्रत्येक व्यक्ति अवैि खिि में भागीदाि समझा जाएगा तथा ऐसे व्यक्तिय ों क अनिकतम एक वर्म कैद अथवा अनिकतम 50,000/- पचास हजाि रूपये जुमामिा अथवा द ि ों सजाएँ दी जा सकेगी।
[(2) यनद क ई व्यक्ति इि नियम ों के प्राविाि ों का उल्लोंघि किते हुए खनिज का उत्खिि किता है त सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी अथवा समाहर्त्ाम अथवा आयुि अथवा िाज्य सिकाि द्वािा प्रानिकृत क ई पदानिकािी ऐसे अपिाि कििे में प्रयुि सभी औजाि, सयोंत्र एवों वाहि के साथ लघु खनिज ों क जब्त कि सकते हैं।
[(3) सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी के द्वािा नििा नकसी दों डानिकािी के आदे श अथवा नििा नकसी नगिफ्तािी वािण्ट के ऐसे व्यक्ति क नगिफ्ताि नकया जा सकेगा, ज इि नियम ों का उल्लोंघि किते हुए लघु खनिज ों का उत्खिि अथवा परिवहि किते हुए पाया जाता है।
[(4) सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी उप नियम (2) के तहत नगिफ्ताि नकए गए व्यक्ति क , उस व्यक्ति द्वािा नकए गए अपिाि के सोंिोंि में एक नलक्तखत नशकायत पत्र के साथ सोंिोंनित थािे के अनिकािी क स प ों ेगा ज उस मामले में क्षेत्रानि काि वाले न्यानयक दण्डानिकािी के समक्ष 24 घोंटे के भीति प्रस्तुत कििा सुनिनित किे गा।] 41 2025:JHHC:27138-DB [(5) "यनद नकसी वाहि का क ई चालक लघु खनिज क परिवहि किते समय सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा निदे शक, खाि अथवा अपि निदे शक, खाि अथवा उपनिदे शक खाि अथवा नजला/सहायक खिि पदानिकािी अथवा समाहताम अथवा समाहताम या िाज्य सिकाि द्वािा प्रानिकृत नकसी पदानिकािी क प्रपत्र 'एम' अथवा झािखण्ड खनिज समिुदाि नियमावली, 2004 के अोंतगमत फामम 'डी' में परिवहि चालाि नदखािे में असफल िहता है अथवा नििीक्षण से इन्काि किता है , त उसे अनिकतम 01 वर्म की कैद अथवा खनिज मूल्य की द गुिी िानश के ििािि दण्ड अथवा द ि ों एक साथ दण्ड नदया जा सकता है तथा दू सिी एवों तीसिी िाि वैि परिवहि चालाि प्रस्तुत िहीों नकय जािे पि उपि ि के अनतरिि दण्ड की िानश क्रमशः 50,000.00 (पचास हजाि) रूपये एवों 1,00,000/-(एक लाख) रूपये ह गी।' जाोंच कििे वाले पदानिकािी द्वािा अवैि परिवहि किते पायें जािे पि वाहि क खनिज सनहत जप्त नकया जाएगा तथा नजसे नकसी सिकािी प्रनतष्ठाि में अथवा स्थािीय थािा प्राोंगण में सुिनक्षत िखा जाएगा। सक्षम पदानिकािी द्वािा अवैि परिवहिकताम के उपि ि दण्ड शुल्क एवों इस आशय का िोंि पत्र (Bond Paper) समनपमत नकए जािे पि नक न्यायालय द्वािा ि नटस नदए जािे पि उपक्तस्थत ह ग ों े, वाहि क खनिज सनहत छ डा जा सकता है , पिन्तु अवैि परिवहिकताम पि नियमािुकूल कािम वाई हेतु इसकी सूचिा न्यायानयक दण्डानिकािी क दी जाएगी। िोंि पत्र का प्रपत्र निदे शक, खाि द्वािा अलग से परिचानलत नकया जाएगा।
'[(6) क ई भी व्यक्ति नजसके पास, वैि खिि पट्टा/अिुमनत-पत्र िहीों है , यनद वह लघु खनिज ों का निष्कासि किता है अथवा इि नियम ों के नवरूद्ध उसकी ओि से क ई एजेण्ट, मैिेजि या नकसी ठे केदाि के द्वािा ऐसा निष्कासि नकया जाता है त वह लघु खनिज ों के अवैि निष्कासि का आि पी ह गा तथा उससे [खनिज ों के मूल्य की दु गुिी िानश] के ििािि तक का दण्ड वसूलिीय ह गा साथ ही सिकाि ऐसे व्यक्ति से जैसा नक मामला ििता ह , भूनम पि नििा वैि प्रानिकािी की अिुमनत से नकए गये कब्जे की अवनि का लगाि, स्वानमस्व या कि की वसूली नकसी अन्य कािूि या नियम ज उस वि लागू ह , में उसके नवरूद्ध की जािे वाली कािम वाई के पूवामग्रह के नििा की जा सकेगी।"
78. The question which requires consideration herein is as to whether the competent authority as per the competency as provided under Rule 11 of Rule of 2017, can exercise its jurisdiction by raising demand in consequence of penalty by taking recourse of the provision 42 2025:JHHC:27138-DB of 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules while imposing penalty as provided under Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.
79. We have already referred hereinabove that the MMDR Act, 1957 has been enacted for the purpose of development of the mining resources and its regulation and conservation and prudent exploitation of minerals. The scope of MMDR Act, 1957 or the frames whereunder either by the Central Government or the State Government is for the purpose of regulating the issue of illegal mining. But what will happen in a case where the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals is going on.
80. In the Central Government Legislation and in order to deal with the aforesaid eventually the prosecution can be lodged in view of the provision of Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 to deal with the issue of illegal transportation or storage or caused to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provision of this Act and the rules made thereunder as referred in section 4(1A).
81. Section 21(1) of the Act 1957 is the recourse to be taken in case of the violation if found on subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 4 by inflicting punishment with imprisonment for a term which extends to five years.
82. Sub-section (4) deals with the issue of transportation without any lawful authority which shall be seized by an officer or the authority specially empowered and for the purpose of confiscation proceeding the same is reported to be the Court competent to take cognizance.
83. Sub-section (5) of section 21 of the Act of 1957 deals with an issue of carrying out a mining operation without any lawful authority 43 2025:JHHC:27138-DB then the price thereof as also 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.
84. The provision as contained under section 21 of the Act of 1957 is to deal with the issue of transportation or storage considered under the Statute to be restricted and in contravention thereof the penalty is to be imposed as provided under section 21.
85. The State being the custodian of the minerals and in order to deal with the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals has been conferred with the power to formulate a rule under section 23C of the Act of 1957 and based upon that a specific rule has been formulated as Rules of 2017.
86. The power of search, seizure and confiscation has been given for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation or storage conferring power to the competent authority/competent officer.
87. The competent authority has been defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rule of 2017 which means the Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Secretary, Mines Commissioner and Director, Mines appointed or authorized by the State Government.
88. The competent officer has been defined under Rule 2(d) which means the Deputy Commissioner of the district and District/Assistant Mining Officer of the district or any Gazetted officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner of the district.
89. The competent authority/competent officer or any such officer authorized by the competent authority by virtue of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 has been conferred with the power to inspect the place 44 2025:JHHC:27138-DB where mining, storage or processing unit exist to verify the stock of ore and minerals and take sample or inspect the record maintained by him.
90. Thus, the power has been conferred of making search and seizure in order to deal with the issue of illegal storage along with the illegal transportation. If such eventuality is found to be there, then the competent authority has been conferred with the power to penalize as per the provision made under the JMMC Rules, 2004 as provided under Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.
91. We have already referred that under the JMMC Rules of 2017 there is no penalty provided and that is the reason the Statute after taking care of the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been incorporated under Rule 13 for imposing punishment as per the provision made under the JMMC Rules, 2004.
92. It needs to refer herein that since we are dealing with the issue of the illegal storage and for the aforesaid purpose a specific rule has been formulated in the light of the provision of section 23C of MMDR Act, 1957 and, hence, the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 as per the reference made thereof under Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 is being considered and in view of the fact that a criminal case is to be instituted if the State wishes to institute a criminal case as per the provision made under section 21(1), but since it is admitted case of the party that no criminal case has been instituted and, as such, here it is not a case for initiation of prosecution under section 21(1), rather, as would be evident from the factual aspect that the competent authority has exercised the jurisdiction under Rule 13 as has been referred in the impugned order dated 15.07.2020 hence, we are considering the issue 45 2025:JHHC:27138-DB by taking into consideration the Rule of 2017 along with the JMMC Rules, 2004 as also with the object to put deterrence in the illegal transportation of minerals or its illegal storage.
93. We have already referred hereinabove that with respect to the reference made in the impugned order dated 15.07.2020 of section 21(5) and which has been held to be wrong reference or aforesaid statutory provision on the basis of the admitted case that no FIR has been instituted.
94. The issue of imposing punishment in terms of money is the core of the dispute as has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner.
95. Since we are dealing with the object and intent of the natural resources and for the aforesaid purpose the MMDR Act, 1957 has been enacted which contains the conferment of power to the State by way of the custodian to regulate. The same is a primary object of the State in view of the fact that there is no independent establishment of the Central Government in any State to look into the issue of regulating the transportation or storage of the minerals and, therefore, in that circumstances the accountability upon the State has become wide as to how to protect and regulate the illegality if has been found to be committed either in the matter of illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals.
96. The submission of the learned Advocate General that merely because in the Rule of 2017 no reference of the term of the punishment has been referred, the same cannot be any aid to the concerned who has been found to be committed irregularity either in the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the minerals and for the aforesaid 46 2025:JHHC:27138-DB purpose the reference of JMMC Rules, 2004 has been given, then the Rule of 2017 is to be read harmoniously with the provision of JMMC Rule, 2004 coupled with the harmonious interpretation to protect the object and intent of the MMDR Act, 1957.
97. This Court is of the view that what has been submitted by the learned Advocate General is having foundation for the reason that if there is any lacuna in the statutory provision as has been pointed out even accepting the same the illegal doer cannot be allowed to take any aid thereof, rather in such circumstances the principle of harmonious construction is to be applied for the purpose of securing the object and intent of the basic object which have been formulated for its regulation as in the present case by way of MMDR Act, 1957 which basic object is to develop the natural resources along with its regulation..
98. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State is having no authority, we forced punishment in terms of money save and except the case is to be instituted in view of the provision of Rule 54 (1) of JMMC Rules, 2004, if the penalty is to be imposed under the provision of Rule 13 of Rules of 2017.
99. But we are not in agreement with such submission due to the reason that the illegal doer cannot dictate the State to take recourse of provision where the issue of regulation of the object is there, herein minerals, as per the object of MMDR Act, 1957.
100. The institution of the criminal case will be by way of inflicting punishment upon the offender but how to compensate the illegal extraction of the minerals or its illegal transportation or illegal storage that is the question which is to be considered. 47
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
101. Instituting a criminal case no doubt can also be resorted to but can it be said that only remedy available to the State to institute a criminal case.
102. Will it not be said that by going through the provision of the MMDR Act, 1957, JMMC Rules, 2004 and Rules of 2017 that the State can also go for penalizing the illegal doer by penalizing in terms of money in addition by instituting a criminal case.
103. The State, in the present case or the case like in nature, if has chosen not to be instituted a criminal case, rather has taken recourse of the Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 whereby the punishment is to be imposed as per the JMMC Rules, 2004 and the only provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004 is provided under Rule 54 (5) as referred herein above.
104. So long as the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 is not held to be ultra vires, it is not available for anybody to come and take the plea that there is no application of the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 as it has specifically been referred as Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.
105. If otherwise punishment as available under the JMMC Rules, 2004 other than as provided under the Rule 54(5), then the matter could be understood but that is not the factual situation rather only provision provided under Rule 54 (5) wherein one year imprisonment and the word or alternatively the punishment can be imposed in terms of money.
106. The word "अथवा", therefore, is constituted to be alternatively of imposing punishment which is to be inflicted by the Court of Law. 48
2025:JHHC:27138-DB
107. The meaning of "अथवा" would be alternative for the reason of the specific reference made under the provision of Rule 13 that the punishment is to be inflicted as per the provision made under JMMC Rules, 2004.
108. In the JMMC Rules, 2004 there is no other provision save and except the Rule 54(5). Further, under the Rule of 2017 the conferment of power of search and seizure has been vested upon the competent authority /competent officer, the executive functionary who is to search and seize the minerals as also inflict penalties but as per the provision provided under the JMMC Rules, 2004.
109. The aforesaid provision, therefore, clarifies that if the power has been conferred upon the executive authority having competent jurisdiction as provided under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2017, then certainly such power is to be exercised under the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 and, hence, the word "अथवा" will be constituted to be alternatively so as to exercise the said power by the executive authority having competency to punish such illegar doer in terms of money by imposing fine.
110. It is also being clarified herein that the purport of Rule 54 (1) is to be interpreted for the purpse of giving effectiveness to the provision of Rules of 2017 is to be trated to be in two part, i.e., conferring the power of the State either to go for by instituting criminal case in pursuance to provision of Rule 54(1) or if the competent authoirity has conducted search and seizure, then in such circumstances the section 54 (1) with 54(5) is also to be taken to be exercised then 49 2025:JHHC:27138-DB only it will be said that effectiveness being given to the mandate of Rules 11 and 13 of the Rules of 2017.
111. It needs to refer herein that the underlying principle that the act is to be read out harmoniously and not by picking one prevailing upon the another otherwise the principle of harmonious construction will be frustrated as has been referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs.
112. The day when JMMC Rule, 2004 was enacted at that time there is no existence of Rules of 2017 and in that way of the matter there are no dispute that who is to proceed in case of violation if the proceeding has been instituted under rule 54(1).
113. The situation will be considered after the enactment of provision of Rules of 2017 wherein the power has been conferred to the executive authority by insertion of the applicability of the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 and as such the moment the executive authority has been conferred with the power, then the reference of punishment or the imposing fine wherein the word "अथवा" is there to be read alternatively in pursuance to the mandate of Rules of 2017.
114. All the issues are answered accordingly.
115. In course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no fault lies on part of the 50 2025:JHHC:27138-DB petitioner, since, the coal in question has genuinely been purchased and even, as such it cannot be said to be the element of illegal storage.
116. Since we have decided the issue of jurisdiction without going into the factual aspect and, as such, is of the view that jurisdictional aspect having been answered hereinabove the writ petitioner is at liberty to avail the forum of appeal as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017 in order to bring all these facts before the concerned competent authority for its consideration in accordance with law.
117. If such application will be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the relevant documents, then the appellant authority will decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.
118. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petitions stands disposed of.
119. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Sudhir Dated:04/09/2025 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR 51