Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Burman vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2019
1 WP-12035-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-12035-2019
(MANOJ BURMAN Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2019
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri B.Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the illegality and validity of the order dated 25-09-2018, passed by the respondent no.3 Collector, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur and also the order dated 15-05-2019, passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, whereby the vehicle Hywa No.MP-20-HB-4683 has been directed to be confiscated and against the said order, appeal has also been dismissed.
The facts of the case are that a surprise spot inspection was carried out on 10-09-2018 by Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) Patan, whereby it was found that the said vehicle was being illegally transporting the sand, therefore, the vehicle alongwith the sand quantity of 14 cubic meter was seized by the authorities and was taken into custody.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He filed reply to the said notice. He admitted the crime and involvement of the vehicle in commission of the crime. The respondent no.3 while imposing penalty under Rule 53(3) of of M.P. Minor and Minerals Rules, 1996 read with M.P. Sand Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1996) found that since the vehicle was involved in commission of the offence for more than one time and therefore, it was liable to be confiscated. The said order was challenged in the appeal before the respondent no.2 unsuccessfully.
Assailing the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the show cause notice nothing was stated about the involvement of the said vehicle in the earlier cases. It is also contended that he accepted the penalty under the impression that the vehicle is involved in the commission of offence for the first time and therefore, the same would 2 WP-12035-2019 not be liable to be confiscated and forfeited under law. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that if he would have been informed about the involvement of the vehicle in some earlier proceeding of illegal mining or illegal storage then he would not have admitted the penalty.
We do not find any force in the aforesaid contention. The relevant provisions of Rule 23(1) of M.P.Sand Rule, 2018 reads as under :
"23(1) Penalty for unauthorized mining/storage- Where any person engages in mining or storage of sand otherwise these rules, or where mining of storage is done on behalf of other, he shall be presumed as a party for such illegal mining or storage and the Collector or any officer authorized by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector after giving an opportunity of being heard, decides that such person has engaged in mining or storage in violation of the provisions of said rules, he may-
(a) Impose a penalty of minimum 60 times royalty of sand mined or stored or rupees 20,000'- whichever is more. An amount equivalent to the penalty imposed above shall also be imposed in addition to the penalty, as compensation to environmental loss and this amount shall be deposited in District Mineral Foundation.
(b) During the proceedings of illegal mining or illegal storage cases, vehicle machinery tools or other materials or stored minerals may be seized from the spot. Collector of concerned district may handover the seized vehicle. machinery, tools or other material to the local body or the government department .
During the period of possession the local body or government department, maintain, keep safe the seized vehicle, machinery and tools and may use as per the condition prescribed by the Collector.
During the proceeding of registered case of illegal mining or illegal storage, Collector of concerned district on the basis of satisfactory reason and on deposition of bank guarantee, fixed deposit or amount equivalent to the market value of seized vehicle, machinery and tool may handover to their owner. On being found guilty in the final disposal of the case of illegal mining or illegal storage, a order shall be issued regarding confiscation, in respect of seized vehicles, machinery, tools etc. Confiscation shall not be mandatory if the case is proved first time but if case is proved second time or more then the seized vehicle, machinery, tool shall be confiscated mandatorily. Confiscated vehicle, machinery, tool etc. shall be disposed off in transparent manner."
Upon perusal of the aforesaid rules, it is crystal clear that at the time of final disposal of the case of illegal mining or illegal storage the vehicle , machinery, tools seized etc. involved in the commission of crime shall be 3 WP-12035-2019 liable to be confiscated but in the case of first time, it shall not be mandatory for the authority to confiscate the vehicle , machinery, tools etc. but in case it is found to be involved in second time or more then the seized vehicle, machinery, tools shall be confiscated mandatorily . In the present case, the authorities have recorded a finding of fact that the vehicle was involved previously in two times in a case of illegal mining, illegal storage and transportation.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that since the vehicle was earlier owned by some other person and therefore, he was not aware of the involvement of the vehicle in the earlier cases has no merit in the light of the provisions of Rules, 2018, Assuming for the sake of arguments that the vehicle was found first time involved in a case of illegal mining, storage or transportation, still the authority could have passed an order of confiscation in relation to such vehicle, machinery, tools etc. as the discretion has been conferred on the authority keeping in view facts of the case but in a case of second time or more then there is no discretion with the authority and he has no option but to pass an order of confiscation of the vehicle.
In the present case we have already noted that both the authorities have recorded a find of fact that the vehicle in question was involved earlier in two times in commission of a case of illegal mining and transportation, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
hsp
Digitally signed by
HARSAHAI PATERIYA
Date: 2019.09.03
12:42:33 +05'30'