Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. First proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 provides that every officer seizing any property or mineral under this rule may handover the property or mineral so seized to the nearest police station or police chauki. The first proviso to sub-rule (6) provides that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property. There is thus deviation from the earlier position obtaining in Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986, (20 of 39) [CRLMP-3595/2021] by stipulating in the first proviso to Rule 54(5), supra, that the officer concerned may handover the property or mineral so seized to the nearest police station or police chauki. Second proviso to Rule 54(5) is to the effect that the seized property may be released after deposition of cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3). Third proviso to Rule 54(5) provides that if the mineral has already been dispatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (3) shall recover cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified therein. Fourth proviso to Rule 54(5) provides that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or mineral shall make a report of such seizure, within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Therefore a discretion has been conferred on the seizing officer to handover the vehicle, which is what we are concerned in the present case, to the nearest police station or police chauki or otherwise release the same on deposition of the cost of mineral along-with compounding fee referred to therein as per prescription made in sub-rule (3) of Rule 54 and if the vehicle is not released by him, then to simultaneously make a report thereof within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, which provision was also therein proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 48 of the RMMC Rules of 1986. The difference which is now found in the fourth proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of the RMMC Rules of 2017 is that such report shall be made to superior officer and also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction within seventy two hours. The obvious purpose for this deviation is that a vehicle should not remain under the control of the seizing officer/the officers of the Mining Department for an unduly long period of time. This clearly indicates intention of the rule making authority that the officer of the mining department would have power to release the vehicle on conditions enumerated therein, however, if no one approaches him within seventy two hours, he "shall make a report of such seizure" to "his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction". In other words, he would retain the power to release the vehicle himself until the expiry of seventy two hours, where after he is mandatorily required to report the matter to his superior officer as also to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In that event, only the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence shall have power to release the vehicle. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017 (21 of 39) [CRLMP-3595/2021] in this behalf provides that all property seized under this Rule shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of Magistrate if the amount equal to ten times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc. is not paid by the trespasser within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence or when the recoveries are not affected by that time. But proviso to Rule 54(5) stipulates that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property.

24. The judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Irfan Vs. State of Rajasthan has reiterated most of the laws pertaining to release of vehicles, at length.

25. This Court, on a careful examination of the precedent laws in an intricate manner, finds that the precedent laws of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and Adhikshak Rashtriya Chambal Abhyaran Vs. Narottam Singh (supra), as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shall govern the field, and thus, the vehicles seized under the mining law and the forest law, shall be released, upon charging the compensation/compounding fee or without charging the compensation/compounding fee, only and only, if the confiscation proceedings in regard thereto have not been initiated by the State authorities. It is to be noted that both mining and the forest laws have the provisions for confiscation proceedings.

26. It is also observed that until the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the Magistrate concerned shall have the power to release the vehicle(s) with or without condition of deposition of compensation/compounding fee, but the Magistrate concerned shall be required to impose a condition of furnishing of a bank guarantee, so as to secure the compensation/compounding fee, if required to be levied in future, after completion of the proceedings.

29. To ensure that after undergoing the proceedings, the concerned parties i.e. registered owners of the vehicles in question shall be paying the requisite compensation/compounding fee, it is directed that the active bank guarantee, equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee, shall be deposited by the registered owners before the trial court before release of the vehicles in question.

30. It is also directed that after such bank guarantee equivalent to the compensation/compounding fee is deposited before the trial court concerned, to which the concerned police station is attached, the trial court concerned shall be required to keep such bank guarantees intact, until the final conclusion of the proceedings;