Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) To grant/ award any other relief or reliefs which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(xv) CrWJC No.516 of (i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the 2022 nature of certiorari for quashing Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 181/2021 registered on 17.09.2021 under section 378/379/411 IPC and Rule 39 (3) and 56 the Bihar Patna High Court CR. WJC No.387 of 2022 dt.16-05-2025 Mineral (Concession, Prevention of illegal mining, transportation & Storage) Rules 2019 (erroneously mentioned in the FIR as Bihar Mining Concession Prevention of Illegal mining and Transportation and Storage Rules 2021) on the ground that the same is completely illegal and without any authority of law.

19. It is submitted that in aforesaid factual circumstances, if there is any breach, then the same is covered by Rule 30 and Rule 47 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019.

20. In this context it is also submitted that even though if any excavation was done outside the permitted environmental clearance area, the Collector is authorized to impose a penalty upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 30 of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. It was also opened for Collector to suspend or cancel the settlement under Rule Patna High Court CR. WJC No.387 of 2022 dt.16-05-2025 47 of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. However, no such action was taken and straightway the present criminal prosecution in bunch was lodged against the petitioners.

24. It is further submitted by Mr. Samdarshi that being a law abiding citizens, apprehending the situations, petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court through Cr.W.J.C. No.6890 of 2019 reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 246 seeking a direction upon the authorities to stop illegal mining and transportation of sand, wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that illegal mining required remedial measures immediately. The Hon'ble High Court issued certain directions thereof, primarily regarding establishment of check posts to check illegal mining and deployment of police personnel along with the authorized representatives of the settlee of the district, to identify the challans, on the basis of which, transportation was being done but even thereafter, the illegal mining was continued, which was one of the reasons for causing financial loss to petitioners, compelling him to Patna High Court CR. WJC No.387 of 2022 dt.16-05-2025 surrender license in 2021. It is submitted that petitioner took all possible legal steps to check illegal mining including intimation to the police and the officials, assisting the administration in putting up check post to prevent illegal transposition of sand and lodging of FIR's against illegal miners. Some of the FIR's lodged by the petitioners are annexed with Cr.W.J.C. No. 387/2022 vide Annexure

60. Taking a contrary note of aforesaid submissions as raised by Department of Mines and Department of Enforcement, it is submitted by Mr. Samdarshi that both these departments projected these cases as of illegal mining. It is pointed out that illegal mining means mining beyond the permissible limit or beyond territory of settlement or mining without concession. It is submitted that in none of these FIRs aforesaid allegation was raised against petitioners. It is Patna High Court CR. WJC No.387 of 2022 dt.16-05-2025 pointed out that the Department of Enforcement has stated that in Chandi P.S. Case No.183 of 2021 and Awtarnagar P.S. Case No.261 of 2021 there is allegation of excess mining. It is submitted that Chandi P.S. Case No.183 of 2021 is under challenge in Cr.W.J.C. No.401 of 2022 and Awtar Nagar P.S. Case No.261 of 2021 is under challenge in Cr.W.J.C. No.505 of 2022, where in both FIRs, there is no allegation qua excess mining. It is pointed out that as ED raised the ownership of sand that was never with petitioners is not justifiable. Agreeing with the submission of Department of Enforcement, it is submitted by Mr. Samdarshi that there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition that ownership of natural resources lies with the State. However, once the State after obtaining royalty and other taxes, settles a particular area and permits excavation of minor minerals the same is guided by the Rules framed under Section 15, 23C and 26 of the MMDR Act. Since the 2019 Rules provides a mechanism for payment of royalty in advance and for excess extraction there is a specific rule that is Rule 51(7) of 2019 Rules, suggest excess dispatch cannot be alleged Patna High Court CR. WJC No.387 of 2022 dt.16-05-2025 against the settlee in view of Rule 29(F) which mandate that the electronic weight bridges have to be integrated with the central server and it is only after verification of quantum of sand, through the weight bridges, the E-challan is generated and such quantity is reduced from the total permissible limit allotted to the petitioner. Neither there is any case of excess mining against the petitioner as per the department of Mines, nor there is any demand in relation to excess excavation in terms of Rule 51(7).