Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that the Haryana mining department cannot retain a vehicle confiscated for any illegality for long in case penalty for overloading is not paid. The HC has held that in such cases, steps should be taken to prosecute accused by lodging FIR or other statute. The directions would be applicable in case the vehicles are seized by mining authorities in Haryana under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (MMDR Act). “Once a vehicle is ordered to be confiscated, steps for auctioning the same may be taken immediately, instead of retaining the vehicle in the police station where its condition is bound to deteriorate which would be a loss to the state as well as it will not be able to recover much amount from auction of the vehicle on account of deteriorated condition of the vehicle,” the HC has ordered.
The court also clarified that if the mining authorities take legal action for overloading in case of non-payment of penalty by the owner, the owner has the right to get the vehicle released under “superdari” from the court.
Justice Gurvinder Singh passed these orders while finding some lacunas in the existing procedure adopted by the mining department of Haryana in case of confiscation of vehicles for any illegality.
The matter had reached court in the wake of a petition filed by K C Stone Crushing Co and others.
Petitioner’s truck carrying “rori” (tiny pieces of stones or gravel) was intercepted by a mining officer in Gurugram.
Since the driver could not produce any document justifying possession and transportation of the mineral, the truck was seized by the mining officer on March 1, 2020, as per the Mining Rules 2012. The petitioner was asked to pay an amount equal to 50% of the showroom value of the truck in question for its release in accordance with an order dated April 5, 2019, passed by National Green Tribune (NGT).
The petitioner produced a transit pass i.e. ‘e-Ravaana’ dated March 1, 2020, pertaining to transportation of 17 metric tonnes (MT) of “rori”. However, since the truck in question was found to be carrying 23 MT of rori, the director of mining department held that transporting excess “rori” would amount to illegal transportation of the excess mineral and, thus, the truck, in any case, was liable to be seized. The director, however, ordered that the truck could be released by paying the penalty under the Mining Rules 2012 and the compensation as per the NGT orders.
Aggrieved by the director’s order, the petition company approached the HC arguing that it was not a case of illegal mining as the pass had been produced. but authorities later built up a new case of excess loading of mineral, though there was no such mention in the seizure order of truck.
It was argued that the action of mining department in neither releasing the truck in question despite a period of more than nine months having elapsed nor even lodging any FIR and keeping the matter in limbo, was high-handedness on part of the authorities as the truck in question was deteriorating due to its disuse and vagaries of weather. It has been submitted that had the authorities lodged FIR, the petitioner could not only have contested the allegations, but could also have moved an application for release of the truck on superdari, which he cannot move now as the court was not seized of the matter.
After hearing all parties, the court held: “Confiscation proceedings are independent proceedings and there is no such limitation provided for initiating the same and the only rider therein as per Rule 101(10) is that such proceedings can be initiated after expiry of one month of the imposition of penalty in case such penalty is not paid. Sitting over the matter for an unreasonable (time) would be prejudicial to the owner inasmuch as not only the owner would be deprived of an opportunity to put forth his case against confiscation, but he would remain deprived of use of his vehicle which rather would deteriorate on account of its disuse and vagaries of weather.”