Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1643 - HC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - power of Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Ratlam to impose Penalty under sub-rule (5) of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 read with Section 247(7) of MPLR Code, 1959. Held that:- From the un-amended Rule 53(1) and sub-rule (5) of the Rules, 1996, the authority to impose fine is Collector and not SDO. As per show cause notice, the details of the place from where the mineral was extracted, the quantity extracted, the market price of the mineral extracted were given and joint panchnama was also prepared to show that it was extracted without lawful authority. Under sub-section (7) of Section 247, the maximum penalty is four times, the market value of the mineral so extracted. Under the unamended provision of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (5) of the Rule 53 of Rules of 1996, the Collector is empowered to compound the offence by imposing the penalty upon ten times of the value of the mineral, but it nowhere provide for imposition of the fine as was imposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) by the impugned order. Only on filing the application or approaching to the Collector to compound the matter, the Collector could have exercised such power. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner herein had not moved to the Collector for compounding the matter, so the SDO was not empowered to invoke the power under sub-Rule (5) of Rule 53. So far as, the stand of the State Government that after amendment in Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, the SDO is empowered to impose the fine against the petitioner. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption of prospectivity articulated in the legal maxim 'nova constitutio futuris forman imponere debet non praeteritis', i.e. ' a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past', and this presumption operates unless shown to the contrary by express provision in the statute or is otherwise discernible by necessary implication. It is also well settled that if the new Act affect the matters of procedure only then, prima facie, it applies to all the actions pending as well as future. The Rules of 1996 prescribed particular procedure to compound the offence by imposition of penalty. The procedure has been altered by subsequent amendment during the pendency of proceedings. The petitioners certainly have a right to dispose of their cases of un-authorized extraction and transportation of minerals by levy of penalty on the basis of rules inforce at the time of inspection made by the mining authorities, but they have no vested right to follow the procedure prescribed on that date on which inspection was made. Since, there is no such vested right, all pending cases of illegal extraction is to be disposed of as per procedure prescribed under the amended provisions of the law. The Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to pass the impugned order, but he has acted illegally and the penalty has been imposed on the basis of amended Rule 53 of Rules of 1996, treated it to have retrospective operation - matter remitted back to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer to reconsider the same and decide the question of imposition of penalty as per the Rules. Petition allowed in part.
|