TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion provides for composition of the matter and not for imposition of the penalty. The penalty could have been imposed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of 1996 and that too by the Magistrate and not by the Sub-Divisional Office concerned. 4. Per contra, Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents State though supported the impugned order on the ground that by the said order, the petitioner could have invoked the jurisdiction of appellate authority by challenging the impugned order in appeal under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1996. It is also submitted that the Government of M.P. in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, makes further amendments in the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, which came into force w.e.f. 18.5.2017 and as per sub-Rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, the Collector or any officer authorized by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector shall determines that such person has exported / transported the minerals in contravention of the provisions of these Rules and as per the amended Rules, the Sub-Divisional Officer is empowered to impose the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued under Rule 53(5) of Rules of 1996 by the Sub-Divisional Officer for imposition of penalty of the alleged offence of illegal mining activities carried out by the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner be not punished with penalty of ten times of the market value under Rule 53(5) of Rules of 1996 read with Section 247 (7) of MPLR Code and why the petitioner be not prosecuted and seized mineral be not forfeited. 8. A detailed reply was filed and on opportunity of hearing he submitted that he has not illegally extracted the aforesaid minerals and he being lessee, no action can be taken against him. The SDO (R), after going through the reply found that there was violation of sub-rule (I) of Rule 53 and directed imposition of penalty to the tune of ten times of the market price of the mineral. The SDO found that he illegally extracted 16504 cubic meters of stone and the value of the said mineral is ₹ 16,50,400/-. After imposing the fine and considering the fact that market value was ₹ 24,75,600/- and ten times of the market value comes to ₹ 24,75,600/-, proposed to impose fine of ₹ 3,30,08,000/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than ten thousand rupees. (b) on second time contravention a penalty of minimum 40 times of the royalty of illegally extracted/ transported minerals shall be imposed but it shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees. (c) on third time contravention, a penalty of minimum 50 times of the royalty of illegally extracted/ transported minerals shall be imposed but it shall not be less than thirty thousand rupees. (d) on third time or subsequent contravention, a penalty of minimum 70 times of the royalty of illegally extracted/ transported minerals, shall be imposed but it shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (2) Forfeiture of minerals in cases of illegal excretion and transportation.- In respect of the Forfeiture/discharge of the mineral extracted/ transported illegally the Collector or any other officer authorized by him not below the rank of the Deputy Collector shall take an appropriate decision. Provided that seized minerals shall not be discharged till the penalty imposed as above is not paid. In case of forfeiture, the seized mineral shall be disposed of through a transparent auction/tender procedure as prescribed by the State Government. (3) Forfeitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansportation; (c) to seize all tools, devices, vehicles and other materials used in excavation of miner mineral in such contravention and to handover all material so seized to the persons or lessee or any other person from whose possession such material was seized on executing an undertaking up to the satisfaction of the officer seizing such material, to this effect that he shall forthwith produce such material as and when may be required to do so: Provided that where the report is submitted under sub-rule (3) above to the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector authorized by him, the seized property shall only be discharged by the order of the Collector or the officer authorized by him. (d) officer as mentioned above shall inform the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector, authorized by him about the incident within 48 hours of coming in to notice of the same. (e) officers as mentioned above shall make a request in writing to the concerning police station/seeking police assistance, if necessary and police officer shall provide such assistance as may be necessary to prevent unlawful excavation/transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction/transportation a fact comes into the knowledge that any lease holder/contractor/permit holder, in order to evade the royalty from any sanctioned quarry lease/trade quarry/permit area is involved in dispatching/selling of minerals in excess quantity by showing less quantity of minerals in transit pass/defective transit permit/blank transit permit, then the Collector of the concerned district may suspend the quarrying operation in such quarry lease/trade quarry permit by issuing show cause notice for violating the conditions of the agreement and after providing an opportunity of being heard may cancel the such lease/trade quarry/ permit. The additional royalty may be recovered after making the assessment of the quantity dispatched or sold in order to evade the royalty: Provided that during the inspection if it is found that illegal minerals transporter by securing the transit pass from the lease holder in order to evade the royalty has made overwriting or tempered the pass then the officer of the minerals department/Mineral Inspector may registered a case against the person concerned. 2. In rule 68, sub-rule (5) shall be omitted. 11. Amended Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. 15. In M/s. Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad V/s. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1987 SC 1364, the Apex Court considered the effect of amendment introduced to Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 on certain previous actions. It was held that proceedings could be initiated for adjudication under the amended law even in regard to a violation which took place prior to the amendments since the provision has retrospective operation. In Gurbachan Singh V/s. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209, it was held that section 113-A of the Evidence Act which lays down a presumption, being only a matter of procedure of evidence would be retrospective in operation. The Court referred to the following passages in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition), Vol.44 pages 570 and 574 respectively : The general rule is that all statutes, other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment inspected the area on 27.8.2016 and 28.8.2016, respectively whereas, the Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 was amended w.e.f. 18.5.2017. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Others V/s. Bhajan Kaur Others, AIR 2008 SC 2276 has held that amendment increasing compensation for no fault liability in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not retrospective. 19. 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 prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
