Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"In view of the above discussion, the referred questions are answered in the terms that once the Officer of the Mining Department, who seized the vehicle, has reported such seizure to his Superior Officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle, and in that event, the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee."

22 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, 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 (6 of 9) [CRLMP-1354/2020] 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 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the notice itself has been issued under Rule 54 of the Rules of Rajasthan Minor and Mining Concessions Rules, 2017, therefore, the compounding fee level could best be as per the Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017.

The learned Government Counsel was directed to show the record of the case, upon which she has shown Annexure/R/3 which is a notice dated 5.7.2018 given to the petitioner under Sections 54, 55 and 58 of the Rules of 2017. Since the notice itself is for illegal mining transportation, therefore, the compounding fee at best can be as per the schedule provided under the Rule 54.

(8 of 9) [CRLMP-1354/2020] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments given, this Court finds that the court below was right in imposing bank guarantee as it has been provided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Laxman Mehrat where it has been held that the court below shall have jurisdiction to release the vehicle with or without condition with a compounding fee. This Court finds that the maximum compounding fee imposable in accordance with Rule 54 for a truck is Rs. 1 lac. Since the compounding fee itself is Rs. 1 Lac therefore, the bank guarantee cannot travel beyond the amount stipulated under Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017.