Riyaz Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1049350
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnOct-01-2012
AppellantRiyaz Ali
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
1 w.p.no.15209/2012 riyaz ali versus state of m.p & ors.01.10.2012 shri m.l.jaiswal, learned senior counsel with shri r.m.sharma for the petitioner. shri p.k.kaurav, learned dy. advocate general for the respondent/state. heard on the question of admission and interim relief. the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the m.p.mineral (prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules of 2006').it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the competent authority, whereby penalty of fine has been imposed upon the petitioner, is contrary to law as the said fine or penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner only in case the offence punishable under the provisions of the rules of 2006 was sought to be compounded. it is submitted that as the petitioner had not requested for compounding the offence and is unwilling to pay fine or penalty, therefore, the authority was required to refer the matter to the magistrate as required by rule 18(3) of 2 w.p.no.15209/2012 riyaz ali versus state of m.p & ors.the rules of 2006 and he could not have passed the impugned order. the learned dy. advocate general appearing for the respondent/state, per contra, submits that the petitioner has undertaken storage of minerals without following the procedure prescribed by the rules of 2006 and is, therefore, liable to pay penalty and the mineral stored by him is liable to be confiscated. it is submitted that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed by the authority imposing fine which is ten time the value of the mineral as provided by rule 18(5) of the rules of 2006 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. rule 18 of the rules of 2006 provides for imposition of penalty for unauthorized transportation or storage of minerals and its products; sub rule (2) provides for seizing the mineral or its products together with tools and equipment and carrier used in committing the offence; sub rule (3) lays down that the authorized person seizing the mineral shall make a report to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence; sub rule (4) makes provision for release of the seized mineral and the property by 3 w.p.no.15209/2012 riyaz ali versus state of m.p & ors.the authorized officer or the magistrate as the case may be; sub rule (5) makes provision for compounding the offence prior to reporting the matter to the magistrate on payment of fine; sub rule (6) provides for confiscation of the property by the magistrate in case the fine and other sum imposed upon the person concerned is not paid within one month from the date of order. the provisions of these rules have been considered by this court in w.a no.1320/2011 decided on 21.3.2012 wherein it has been held that an individual cannot be compelled to compound an offence and in case he does not wish to pay the penalty or fine imposed by the authorized officer, the officer concerned is left with no other cours.but to refer and report the matter to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as it is stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he had not requested for compounding the offence or accepted the fine or penalty, therefore, the impugned order dated 7.9.2012 is set aside and the matter is directed to be reported to the magistrate having jurisdiction, for further proceedings. 4 w.p.no.15209/2012 riyaz ali versus state of m.p & ors.in view of the provisions of section 18 of the rules of 2006 and the order passed by this court in w.a no.1320/2011 dated 21.3.2012, the impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 7.9.2012 is hereby quashed and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that the concerned authority shall again take up the matter and in case the petitioner expresses his willingness to compound the offence, take up proceedings under rule 18(5) of the rules of 2006 and in case the petitioner does not wish to compound the offence, then the matter be reported to the magistrate for further action in accordance with the provisions of the rules of 2006. it is made clear that quashment of the impugned order would not mean that the mineral seized from the petitioner be released which would be subject to the orders passed by the competent authority or the magistrate, as the case may be, in accordance with law. with the aforesaid observation, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the directions to the concerned authority to take up the matter as stated above. c.c as per rules. ( r.s.jha ) judge 5 w.p.no.15209/2012 riyaz ali versus state of m.p & ors.mms/-
Judgment:

1 W.P.No.15209/2012 Riyaz Ali versus State of M.P & ORS.01.10.2012 Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.M.Sharma for the petitioner.

Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy.

Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the M.P.Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2006').It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the competent authority, whereby penalty of fine has been imposed upon the petitioner, is contrary to law as the said fine or penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner only in case the offence punishable under the provisions of the Rules of 2006 was sought to be compounded.

It is submitted that as the petitioner had not requested for compounding the offence and is unwilling to pay fine or penalty, therefore, the authority was required to refer the matter to the Magistrate as required by Rule 18(3) of 2 W.P.No.15209/2012 Riyaz Ali versus State of M.P & ORS.the Rules of 2006 and he could not have passed the impugned order.

The learned Dy.

Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, per contra, submits that the petitioner has undertaken storage of minerals without following the procedure prescribed by the Rules of 2006 and is, therefore, liable to pay penalty and the mineral stored by him is liable to be confiscated.

It is submitted that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed by the authority imposing fine which is ten time the value of the mineral as provided by Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Rule 18 of the Rules of 2006 provides for imposition of penalty for unauthorized transportation or storage of minerals and its products; Sub rule (2) provides for seizing the mineral or its products together with tools and equipment and carrier used in committing the offence; sub rule (3) lays down that the authorized person seizing the mineral shall make a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence; sub rule (4) makes provision for release of the seized mineral and the property by 3 W.P.No.15209/2012 Riyaz Ali versus State of M.P & ORS.the authorized officer or the Magistrate as the case may be; sub rule (5) makes provision for compounding the offence prior to reporting the matter to the Magistrate on payment of fine; sub rule (6) provides for confiscation of the property by the Magistrate in case the fine and other sum imposed upon the person concerned is not paid within one month from the date of order.

The provisions of these rules have been considered by this Court in W.A No.1320/2011 decided on 21.3.2012 wherein it has been held that an individual cannot be compelled to compound an offence and in case he does not wish to pay the penalty or fine imposed by the authorized officer, the officer concerned is left with no other couRs.but to refer and report the matter to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as it is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that he had not requested for compounding the offence or accepted the fine or penalty, therefore, the impugned order dated 7.9.2012 is set aside and the matter is directed to be reported to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, for further proceedings.

4 W.P.No.15209/2012 Riyaz Ali versus State of M.P & ORS.In view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Rules of 2006 and the order passed by this Court in W.A No.1320/2011 dated 21.3.2012, the impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 7.9.2012 is hereby quashed and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that the concerned authority shall again take up the matter and in case the petitioner expresses his willingness to compound the offence, take up proceedings under Rule 18(5) of the Rules of 2006 and in case the petitioner does not wish to compound the offence, then the matter be reported to the Magistrate for further action in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 2006.

It is made clear that quashment of the impugned order would not mean that the mineral seized from the petitioner be released which would be subject to the orders passed by the competent authority or the Magistrate, as the case may be, in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of with the directions to the concerned authority to take up the matter as stated above.

C.C as per rules.

( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE 5 W.P.No.15209/2012 Riyaz Ali versus State of M.P & ORS.mms/-