Partly allowed

Mehul Parsottambhai Sangani v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC7 Oct 2019SCA/6186/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order levying penalty and compounding fees for illegal mining without following the prescribed seizure procedure. The Court found the authority misread the rules, failed to follow the procedure for producing seized property before the court when compounding was not applied for, and misapplied compounding fees. The order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority to pass a fresh order within 15 days in accordance with the law.

Mehul Parsottambhai Sangani Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6186 of 2019

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

MEHUL PARSOTTAMBHAI SANGANI

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

¶13

Date : 07/10/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

¶16

“(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

¶17

(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent no.2 and 3 to immediately release the vehicle i.e. Hitachi Machine (Doosan Infracore) Model No.S150LC7B HYD excavator bearing registration No. GJ-03-AY-9636 having Chasis No.CEBAH027507 and Engine No. DB58T315343EK of the petitioner;

¶18

(c) Pending admission final hearing and disposal of this petition, direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to release the vehicle i.e. Hitachi Machine (Doosan Infracore) Model No.S150LC7B HYD excavator bearing registration No. GJ-03-AY-9636 having Chasis No.CEBAH027507 and Engine No. DB58T315343EK of the petitioner upon such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

¶19

Page 1 of 14

¶20

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶21

(e) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

¶22

The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle Hitachi Machine (Doosan Infracore) Model No. S150LC7B HYD excavator bearing registrations No. GJ-03-AY-9636. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14.08.2018, respondent no.3 seized vehicle of the petitioner in non working condition when the petitioner has parked the vehicle at Mukeshbhai Rathawa’s weigh bridge and issued seizure memo (Form- J) as per sub-rule (i) of Rule 12 of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The vehicle of the petitioner was seized on the ground that the petitioner was doing illegal excavating on the sides of the road.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereafter, made an application before the respondent no.2 -authority for clarifying the above mentioned facts and submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The Authority even though had knowledge about the above mentioned fact, has passed an order

¶24

Page 2 of 14

¶25

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶26

dated 01.05.2019 imposing compounding fees of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of the Hitachi Machine and directed the petitioner to pay total sum of Rs.5,73,843/for release of vehicle Hitachi Machine and also levied fine for 1557.68 metric ton of ordinary sand, which was alleged to have been excavated from the said area. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition.

¶27

Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondents.

¶28

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that so far as Hitachi Machine is concerned, respondent no.3 has levied penalty of Rs.3,73,843/- for 1557.68 metric ton of ordinary sand and also asked the petitioner to pay compounding fees of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to pay the sum of Rs.5,73,843/under Rule 21(3) of the Rules, for release of the Hitachi Machine.

¶29

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on

¶30

Page 3 of 14

¶31

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶32

bare perusal of the impugned order dated 01.05.2019, it nowhere refers to the prescribed procedure under the sub-rule (2) of Rule 12. The petitioner has not tendered any application for compounding of offence and therefore, under clause (ii)(b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules, the respondent was supposed to produce seized property i.e. Hitachi Machine before the concerned Court upon expiry of fifteen days. However, the respondents are still having custody of the Hitachi Machine and has not produced it before the concerned Court and therefore, there is clear violation of Rule 12(2) (b)(ii) of the Rules. She further submitted that on perusal of the impugned order, there is no clarity as to on what basis compounding fees of Rs.2,00,000/- is imposed when there is no application made by the petitioner for compounding fees and further on what basis penalty of Rs.3,73,843/- (1557.68 X 240) is levied is also not clarified in the impugned order. She therefore, submitted that the impugned order being contrary to the Rules is liable to quashed and set aside.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhwan Jayswal has tendered affidavit-in-

¶34

Page 4 of 14

¶35

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶36

reply on behalf of respondent no.2 and submitted that there is alternative remedy available under Rule 18 for filing an appeal and therefore, the petition is not required to be entertained. He further submitted that the impugned order is passed following the provisions of Rule 12, and therefore, if the petitioner desires to have his vehicle released, bank guarantee of ten times of market value of the minerals seized or for such other amount as may be specified by the Government through a notification, subject to minimum of Rs.2,00,000/- is required to be deposited under sub-rule (6) of Rule 12 of the Rules. He also submitted that the vehicle cannot be released until the petitioner pay amount for compounding the offence. Therefore, he referred to Rule 22 of the Rules which provides for compounding of offences and accordingly, amount of penalty as Rs.3,73,843/- is calculated as per scheduled – III of the Rules which prescribes method of calculation of compounding fees to be paid by the persons who have committed offence under the provisions of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). He further submitted that as the petitioner has already

¶37

Page 5 of 14

¶38

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶39

paid an amount of penalty and submitted bank guarantee for release of the tractors, the petitioner is also required to pay penalty of Rs.3,73,843/- and bank guarantee in order to release his vehicle JCB No. GJ-03AY-9636.

¶40

Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the averments made in the petition and affidavit-in-reply as well as material produced on record, it emerges that the respondent no.2 while passing impugned order dated 01.05.2019 has misread the provisions of the Rules as well as of the Act. The respondent no.2 is neither clear about the provisions of Rule 12 nor Rule 21 or Rule 22 which are relevant for the purpose of either levy of compounding fee or penalty, to be recovered from the petitioner. It appears that the respondent no.2 not being well aware about relevant Rules as well as provisions of the Act, has passed the impugned order by misreading the provisions to levy of compounding fees under Rule 22 of the Rules. On bare perusal of the impugned order in the first paragraph, it states that the compounding fee of Rs.2,00,000/- is levied, however, no application for

¶41

Page 6 of 14

¶42

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶43

compounding the offence is given by the petitioner and therefore, there is no question of levy compounding fees by the respondent no.2. Moreover, the respondent no.2 has calculated Rs.3,73,843/-, to be paid by the petitioner, without any reference as to whether it is compounding fees or penalty. The said amount is calculated for the alleged excavation of minerals of 1557.68 metric ton of ordinary sand. The respondent no.2 has not clarified as to under which Rule, such amount of Rs.3,73,843/- is calculated i.e. under Rule 21 or Rule 22 of the Rules. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer the said Rules, which are as under :

¶44

“21. Penalties and recovery:-

¶45

(1) Any contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 of the Act shall be punishable in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act.

¶46

(2) Any other contravention of these rules 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.

¶47

(3) Whenever any person raises, transports or stores any mineral or causes to be raised or transported pr stored any mineral without any lawful authority, the Government may recover from such person, the mineral so raised or transported or stored and where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, the rent, royalty, tax and any other amount payable under the Act and/or

¶48

Page 7 of 14

¶49

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶50

the rules made thereunder and hereunder as the case may be:

¶51

Provided that where the minerals have been obtained from a mineral based area on a Transit Permit after the due payment of royalty but the storage of the mineral is made without registration, a penalty equal to the amount of single royalty amount parable shall be charged for such illegal storage, in case the person has applied for registration prior to storage. If the person has made application for registration after the storage of minerals, a penalty equal to double the amount of royalty payable shall be charged for such illegal storage.

¶52

(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or stores or cause to be raised or transported or stored without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land/place and for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such property shall be liable to be seized by an Authorized Officer or by an authority specially empowered in this behalf.

¶53

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under sub-rule (1) shall be cognizable.

¶54

22. Compounding of offences:-

¶55

Any offence punishable under these rules may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded by the Authorized Officer on payment of an amount computed in the manner specified in Schedule – III when an offence is compounded:

¶56

(a) no further proceedings shall be commenced against such person,

¶57

(b) If any proceedings have already been commenced against such person, such proceedings shall not be further proceeded with and;

¶58

(c) the accused person, if in custody, shall be discharged and the property seized shall, if it is not to be so retained, be released.

¶59

Provided that the same offence shall not be compounded more than three times with respect to the same person or carrier.”

¶60

Page 8 of 14

¶61

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶62

On bare perusal of the above Rules, it is clear that Rule 21 provides for penalties and recovery whereas Rule 22 provides for levy of the compounding fees. In order to levy compounding fees, it is necessary to refer Rule 12 of the Rules which provides for seizure of property liable to confiscation, which reads as under :

¶63

“ 12. Seizure of property liable to confiscation:-

¶64

(1) 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 other ― thing (hereinafter referred to as property) shall be ‖ liable to be seized by the Government in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) of this rule.

¶65

(2) Every Authorised Officer seizing any property under these rules shall photograph the property and place on such property a mark in such manner as may be prescribed, indicating that the same has been so seized and shall:

¶66

(a) issue a notice in Form J informing the person from whom the property is seized of the property so seized;

¶67

(b) conduct:

¶68

i. an investigation and if he is satisfied that a compoundable offence has been committed in respect of the property, he may, subject to receipt of a compounding application, order payment of such amount for compounding the offence as may be deemed appropriate; or

¶69

ii. a preliminary investigation and shall produce the property seized before a court empowered to determine commission of such offence, if compounding is not permissible under rule 22 or if no application for compounding is received pursuant to clause (a) above, upon the expiry of fifteen days from the date of seizure or upon completion of the investigation, whichever is

¶70

Page 9 of 14

¶71

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶72

earlier.

¶73

(3) Where any property seized under sub-rule (1) above is produced before a court under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) and the court is satisfied that offence has been committed in respect thereof, the court may order confiscation of the property under subsection (4A) of Section 21 of the Act.

¶74

(4) No order for confiscating any property shall be made under sub-rule (3) unless the person from whom the property seized is given:

¶75

(a) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation; and

¶76

(b) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

¶77

(5) Upon expiry of fifteen days from the date of seizure of the property under sub-rule (2) and prior to:

¶78

(a) payment for compounding the offence under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2); or

¶79

(b) completion of the investigation by the Authorised Officer under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2); or

¶80

¶81

the Authorized Officer may release the property on the furnishing of a non-interest bearing security deposit or a bank guarantee.

¶82

(6) The bank guarantee issued under sub-rule (5) shall be valid for an initial period of one year and shall be renewed from time to time until payment for compounding the offence under sub-clause (3), as applicable, is made. The non-interest bearing security deposit or bank guarantee shall be fo an amount eqivalaent to ten times of the market value of the mineral seized or for such other amount as may be specified by the Government through a notification, subject to a minimum of rupees two lakh;

¶83

Page 10 of 14

¶84

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶85

Provided that, if upon a determination under sub-rule (3), a penalty for an amount exceeding the amount of non-interest bearing security deposit or bank guarantee is levied and the penalty amount is not paid, then the penalty amount may be recovered in the same manner as if it were an arrear of land revenue.

¶86

(7) The property seized under this rule shall be kept in the custody of the Authorized Officer, any other third party, nearest police station or Government premises until;

¶87

(a) payment for compounding the offence is made; or

¶88

(b) a bank guarantee is provided pursuant to sub-rule (5); or

¶89

¶90

10.On conjoint reading of aforesaid three Rules, respondent

¶91

no.2 is required to exercise powers of seizure of property for the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 any contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of Section 4 of the Act, shall be punishable in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid analysis of various provisions and Rules, respondent no.2 is required to apply the same and pass order accordingly after following the same with a view to curb illegal mining which is the object of the Act as well as Rules. However, it appears that respondent no.2 has passed the

¶92

Page 11 of 14

¶93

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶94

impugned order by levy of penalty by way of compounding fees as well as other amount so as not to initiate any proceedings for referring the matter to the concerned Court prescribed under sub-rule (2)(ii) of Rule 12 of the Rules. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to provision for penalty prescribed in Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶95

Penalties. ― 1[(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.

¶96

(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.

¶97

(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.

¶98

¶99

(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.

¶100

Page 12 of 14

¶101

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶102

(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.

¶103

(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.

¶104

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.”

¶105

11.Sub-section (4A) of Section 21 prescribes that 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. It appears that the respondents have totally ignored the provisions of the Rules though time and again admonished by this Court in the orders which are cited and has passed orders for levy of compounding fees and to recover the same so as not to adopt the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules.

¶106

Page 13 of 14

¶107

C/SCA/6186/2019 ORDER

¶108

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside by remanding matter back to the respondent no.2 to pass fresh order in accordance with law by denovo proceedings as per the Rules and Provisions of the Act. Such exercise for passing fresh order in the facts of the case, shall be carried out within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶109

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. Direct service is permitted.

¶110

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

¶111

RAGHUNATH R NAIR

¶112

Page 14 of 14

Mehul Parsottambhai Sangani v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehul Parsottambhai Sangani v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitinbhai Shankarlal Jani Vs State of Gujarat

Vipul R Shah Rupali Medical & Provision Vs Director General - Office of Director General Competition

Moti Enterprises Vs Union of India

Mangubhai Kikabhai Aahir Vs the State of Gujarat

Harindar Kalara Vs State of Gujarat

Sakshi S Agrawal Vs State of Gujarat