Jharkhand High Court
M/S Laxmi Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2695 of 2020
M/s Laxmi Enterprises, having its registered office at Nehru Road,
Bengali Tola, P.O & P.S-Ramgarh Cant. District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand),
through its proprietor, namely, Manoj Kumar Agarwal, aged about 46
years, son of Sri Raj Kumar Agarwal, resident of Nehru Road, Bengali
Tola, P.O & PS-Ramgarh Cant., District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of
Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O.& P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having
its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
3. District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh P.O and P.S. Hazaribagh, District
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ............ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
------
C.A.V on 13.08.2025 Pronounced on 12/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for
quashing of the order issued vide letter no.341 dated
05.05.2020 (Annexure-10) under the signature of District
Mining Officer, Hazaribagh-Respondent no.3 so far as it
relates to the vehicle of the petitioner being Vehicle No. JH-
02AK-6930 and JH-02V-9431, whereby and whereunder the
respondent no.3 informed the Police Officer-in-Charge,
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
Hazaribagh that a fine has been imposed upon Ten Vehicles
(including the two vehicles of the petitioner) as per the
provisions of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017;
And/Or
(ii) Upon quashing of an aforesaid order an appropriate writ,
order or direction, may be issued declaring that the imposition
of fine is illegal and consequently direct the respondents
particularly the respondent no.3 to refund the amount of
Rs.2,31,102/- along-with the statutory interest."
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ
petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) It is pleaded that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm inter
alia engaged in business of resale of coal purchased by the
government companies/private companies. For doing the
aforesaid business, the petitioner was required to and
accordingly got itself registered with auction service provider
i.e. MSTC Limited and M. Junction Services Limited. The
certificate to that effect was issued by MSTC Limited on
18.09.2019 which is valid up to 23.12.2020 being Buyer
No.57278, similarly M. Junction Services Ltd. issued ID Card
No.27712 which is valid upto 16.08.2020.
(ii) It is pleaded that M/s Central Coalfields Limited from time-
to-time issues tender for Spot E-auction in terms of the
applicable Auction Rules. As per the conditions of auction the
bidders will have to be registered as 'dealer' under the
Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017' ["Rules, 2017"] and
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
submit a Dealer Registration Certificate in Form-B. The
petitioner accordingly applied for and was granted a
Certificate of Dealer Registration in Form-B on 15.05.2019
and was assigned a Mineral Dealer Registration Number viz
J030802930.
(iii) It is pleaded that M/s CCL, through the service provider,
namely, MSTC Ltd. and M Junction Ltd. conducted Spot E-
Auction (offer with revised reserved price) on 22.04.2020 and
23.04.2020 for sale of Raw Coal / Reject by Road Mode in its
different collieries.
(iv) It is pleaded that the writ petitioner participated in spot E-
Auction held on 22.04.2020 in respect of different collieries
of M/s CCL and after successful completion of the bidding
process, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder
for seven collieries of M/s CCL in connection with auction
held on 22.04.2020.
(v) It is pleaded that consequently, M/s CCL issued a Sale
Intimation Letter to the petitioner confirming that the
petitioner has been allotted coal /coal products of M/s CCL
through E-Auction conducted by MSTC and the said letter set
out details of the colliery, coal allotted, bid price and the grade
/ size of the coal.
(vi) Thereafter, the petitioner deposited an amount of
Rs.1,27,77,400/- on 23.04.2020 with M/s CCL on account of
the abovementioned transaction by way of RTGS.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
(vii) It is pleaded that thereafter, M/s CCL, inter alia, issued a Sale
Order (Road Mode) for 1000 tonnes of coal in favour of the
petitioner on 25.04.2020 for Kedla OCP Colliery.
(viii) It is pleaded that the coal was purchased for trading and the
petitioner was directed to approach the concerned area sales
officer on or before 02.05.2020.
(ix) Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned area sales
officer along with the sale order and consequently an
allotment schedule for loading of trucks from Kedla OCP
Cast Projects for 29.04.2020 was issued, the petitioner was
required to bring a total number of 13 trucks between
01.05.2020 to 07.05.2020 as per the schedule for lifting the
coal. For transportation of coal from the colliery of M/s CCL,
the petitioner hired trucks and as per the given schedule, the
petitioner sent 2 nos. of trucks in the Kedla OCP Colliery on
01.05.2020 bearing registration number JH-02V9431 and JH-
02AK-6930 for lifting and transportation of coal.
(x) It is pleaded that M/s CCL Issued two Tax Invoice (GST INV-
1) on 01.05.2020, wherein the details of the quantity of tonnes
and vehicles are recorded. Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431 was
loaded with 19.07 tonnes of coal and JH-02AK-6930 was
load with 18.63 tonnes of coal.
(xi) It is pleaded that after the issuance of GST Challan, M/s CCL
issued two Transport Challans in Form-D on 01.05.2020 in
terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2017, wherein the details of the
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
Vehicle carrying coal, place of delivery of materials, Distance
and Date of Dispatch of materials are provided.
(xii) It is pleaded that the coal was to be dispatched from Charhi,
Hazaribagh Area-Kedla to Nehru Road, Bangali Tola,
Ramgarh, the distance between the two points being 100
K.M. One challan was issued on 01.05.2020 at 05:57:10 P.M.
which was valid upto 01.05.2020 at 09:57:10 P.M for the
Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431, whereas for the other Vehicle No.
JH-02AK-6930 a Challan was issued on 01.05.2020 at
06:40:51 P.M. which was valid upto 01.05.2020 at 10:40:51
P.M.
(xiii) It is pleaded that the petitioner is engaged in the business of
resale of the coal / minerals. Coal is a de-controlled item and
after purchase of coal through the spot e-auction process, the
petitioner can resell the coal in the open market and for that
the petitioner has to re-generate the GST Invoice in the name
of the purchaser and for transportation of the goods, it has to
generate E-Way Bill from the Government Website, i.e.
www.ewaybillgst.gov.in.
(xiv) It is pleaded that the petitioner had sold the abovementioned
coal to be lifted from Kedla OCP on 01.05.2020 to one M/s
Laxmi Coal Dipo. Gaya, Bihar and for transportation of the
same, the petitioner generated GST Invoice on 01.05.2020 in
the name of M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo, at village Majholia, P.S.
Aamas, Gaya, Bihar, and an E-Way Bill 01.05.2020.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
(xv) It is pleaded that from the E-Way Bill it is evident that for the
Vehicle No. JH-02AK-6930 the same was valid from
01.05.2020 at 08:33 P.M. till 03.05.2020, and the distance is
181 K.M.
(xvi) It is pleaded that for the Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431 the E-Way
Bill was valid from 01.05.2020 at 08:52 P.M. till 03.05.2020,
and the distance is 181 Κ.Μ.
(xvii) It is pleaded that after the coal was loaded on the two trucks
from Kedla OCP on 01.05.2020 and the above mentioned two
trucks were in transit and headed to Gaya, both the Vehicles
of the petitioner were intercepted by the Police Officer, Ichak,
Hazaribagh on 02.05.2020 and on a baseless allegation that
the vehicles were engaged in illegal transportation of the
minerals and both the vehicle / trucks were detained by the
police. Neither any proceeding was initiated nor any seizure
list was prepared.
(xviii) It is pleaded that the police did not have the authority to search
and seize the vehicles. The papers produced by the drivers
such as the GST Invoices, E-Way bill and the transport
challan were not considered by the police officials and the
writ petitioner was asked to contact the respondent no.3
District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh.
(xix) It is pleaded that thereafter, the District Mining Officer,
Hazaribagh issued letter no.341 dated 05.05.2020 informing
the Police Officer-in-Charge, Hazaribagh that a fine has been
imposed upon Ten Vehicles (including the two vehicles of the
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
petitioner) as per the provisions of Jharkhand Mineral
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage)
Rules, 2017 for illegal transportation of the coal. The penalty
imposed qua truck being registration number JH-02AK-6930
was Rs,1,14,202/- whereas for truck being registration
number JH-02V-9431 was Rs, 1,16,900/-. The quantum of
penalty was double the amount of the basic price of coal i.e.
Rs.3065 per Metric Ton.
(xx) Further, the writ petitioner was thus compelled to deposit the
penalty of Rs.1,14,202/-against Vehicle No. JH-02AK-6930
and penalty of Rs.1,16,900/- against Vehicle No. JH-02V-
9431, both on 11.05.2020; total penalty being Rs.2,31,102/-.
(xxi) It is pleaded that thereafter, the District Mining Officer,
Hazaribagh, vide its letter no.356 dated 13.05.2020, informed
the Police Officer-in-Charge, Ichak, Hazaribagh that the
petitioner has deposited the penalty amount against both the
Vehicles, and only thereafter the vehicles were released.
3. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner-company for quashing of the impugned order dated
05.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.3-District Mining officer,
Hazaribagh as also for refund of the amount of Rs.2,31,102/- along with
the statutory interest.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the
following grounds in assailing the impugned decision issued under the
signature of District Mining Officer:
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
(i) The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh has no jurisdiction and
/ or competence to impose the penalty by the impugned order.
The Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 (herein referred as Rule
of 2017) read with the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2004 do not empower the District Mining Officer to
impose any penalty even if there is a violation of the 2017 Rules.
The power to punish has been entrusted to the courts by the rules
2017, therefore, the fine which has been imposed by issuance of
the impugned order vide order dated 05.05.2020 by the District
Mining Officer is per se illegal.
(ii) It has been contended that if the content of Rule 13 of Jharkhand
Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2017, (herein referred as Rule 2017) will be
considered then the same being in the nature of punishment
which can only be inflicted by the learned competent Court
having criminal jurisdiction.
(iii) It has further been contended that the power to seize and
confiscate by the Police Officer is contrary to Rule 11 of the
Rules, 2017 and Memo no.2532 dated 17.8.2017, wherein the
State Government has not given the power to the police officer
to search the vehicle and confiscate the goods.
(iv) It has been submitted that the petitioner states that prior to the
issuance of the impugned order neither any show cause notice
was served on the petitioner nor the petitioner was granted any
opportunity of hearing by the District Mining Officer. The
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
Impugned order therefore is violative of the principles of natural
justice and hence is a nullity.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner based upon the
aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order, therefore,
suffers from an error.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondent-State to defend the impugned order has raised the following
grounds:
(i) It has been contended that the filing of present application is
wholly without cause of action and without any reasonable &
cogent reasons for the reason that the petitioner has not disputed
the fact that the challan produced by the petitioner has already
been expired and the destination mentioned over the challan is
different from the route/place where seizure has been made and
is contrary to the provision of Section 13 to Jharkhand Minerals
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules
2017 and further there is efficacious and alternative remedy but
still the petitioner straight way moved before this Hon'ble court
in writ jurisdiction where also there is also dispute of facts.
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.05.2020 has been issued by the
District Mining Officer under Rule 13 of the Rule 2017.
(iii) It has been submitted that the important thing is to be taken into
consideration is actual conferment of power as has been
confirmed by virtue of provision of Rule 54 (5) of JMMC Rules,
2004 which has been invoked in view of the of the provision of
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 where it has been provided that any
person who in contravenes of any of the provision of these rules,
or buys or sells or stores minerals except under and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers
registration or who transports the mineral except as mentioned
in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport
challan shall be punishable as per provision made under JMMC
Rules, 2004 and as amended from time to time.
(iv) The contention, therefore, has been made that District Mining
Officer has conferred with the power as would be evident from
the Rule 54(5) of JMMC Rules, 2004.
(v) It has further been contended that it appears from the record that
a surprise inspection/checking has been carried on 02.05.2020
by the officer In-Charge and other police officer of Ichak Police
Station and during inspection after observing the documents of
petitioner vehicles and other 8 vehicles, it was suspected that
stolen coal are being transported without valid papers and
therefore the vehicles have been seized after instituting sanha
being no. 05/20 in Ichak P.S.
(vi) It is submitted that after seizure of vehicles, the document
produced by the vehicles have been sent to the District Mining
Officer, Hazaribagh for verification which was accordingly
verified wherein it was found that the challans have expired and
the said vehicles have been found to be plying in different route
as mentioned in transit challan and same has been found to be
contrary to Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and, accordingly, a
report vide memo no. 337 dated 04.05.2020 has been forwarded
to the officer In-charge of Ichak.
(vii) It has further been submitted that since the said fine has been as
per the statutory mandate as provided under Rule 2017 read with
Rule 54 of Rules 2004 by which the jurisdiction has been
conferred to the District Mining Officer, therefore, the said
impugned order dated 05.05.2020 requires no interference.
(viii) It has further been submitted that police has jurisdiction to make
search and seizure of the property if suspected circumstances
leading to the facts that illegal transportation of coal are being
made and loss to the Government are being done, however, in
the instant case the challans have been sent to Mining
Department and after verification demand has been issued in
terms of rules by District Mining Officer which is within
jurisdiction.
(ix) It has been submitted that there is no complete bar in search and
seizure of property if found to be involved in theft and giving
loss to Government under IPC, however, in the present case the
police has sent the paper for verification to the Mining
Department and the action of imposing fine under Rules 2017
has been made by District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh which is
within jurisdiction. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
already made it clear that the police are having jurisdiction
despite special rules once it founds the action to be an offence
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
under IPC and merely by a letter the jurisdiction of police may
not be abrogated.
(x) It has further been contended that the imposing fine was legal in
view of Rule 13 of the Rule 2017 and the same was imposed after
giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner
has not produced the requisite documents as such no prejudice
has been caused to the petitioner.
7. The learned Advocate General, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and
the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis:
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the counter-
affidavit as also the finding recorded in the impugned order passed by
the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh.
9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioner is a
proprietorship firm inter alia engaged in the business of resale of coal
purchased by the Government companies/private companies. For doing
the aforesaid business, the petitioner was required to and accordingly
got itself registered with auction service provider i.e. MSTC Limited
and M. Junction Services Limited. The certificate to that effect was
issued by MSTC Limited on 18.09.2019 which is valid up to
23.12.2020 being Buyer No.57278, similarly M. Junction Services Ltd.
issued ID Card No.27712 which is valid upto 16.08.2020.
10. M/s Central Coalfields Limited from time-to-time issues
tender for Spot E-auction in terms of the applicable Auction Rules. As
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
per the conditions of auction the bidders will have to be registered as
'dealer' under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017' ["Rules, 2017"] and submit a
Dealer Registration Certificate in Form-B. The petitioner, accordingly,
applied for and was granted a Certificate of Dealer Registration in
Form-B on 15.05.2019 and was assigned a Mineral Dealer Registration
Number viz J030802930.
11. The service provider, namely, M/s MSTC Ltd. and M
Junction Ltd. conducted Spot E-Auction (offer with revised reserved
price) on 22.04.2020 and 23.04.2020 for sale of Raw Coal / Reject by
Road Mode in its different collieries.
12. The writ petitioner participated in spot E-Auction and after
successful completion of the bidding process, the petitioner was
declared as the successful bidder for seven collieries of M/s CCL.
13. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited an amount of
Rs.1,27,77,400/- on 23.04.2020 with M/s CCL on account of the
abovementioned transaction by way of RTGS consequently M/s CCL,
inter alia, issued a Sale Order (Road Mode) for 1000 tonnes of coal in
favour of the petitioner on 25.04.2020 for Kedla OCP Colliery.
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the concerned area sales officer
along with the sale order and consequently an allotment schedule for
loading of trucks from Kedla OCP Cast Projects was issued on
29.04.2020, the petitioner was required to bring a total number of 13
trucks between 01.05.2020 to 07.05.2020 as per the schedule for lifting
the coal.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
14. For transportation of coal from the colliery of M/s CCL, the
petitioner hired trucks and as per the given schedule, the petitioner sent
2 nos. of trucks in the Kedla OCP Colliery on 01.05.2020 bearing
registration number JH-02V9431 and JH-02AK-6930 for lifting and
transportation of coal.
15. M/s CCL Issued two Tax Invoice (GST INV-1) on
01.05.2020, wherein the details of the quantity of tonnes and vehicles
are recorded. Vehicle No. JH-02V-9431 was loaded with 19.07 tonnes
of coal and JH-02AK-6930 was loaded with 18.63 tonnes of coal. After
the issuance of GST Challan, M/s CCL issued two Transport Challans
in Form-D on 01.05.2020 in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2017,
wherein the details of the Vehicle carrying coal, place of delivery of
materials, Distance and Date of Dispatch of materials are provided.
16. Thereafter, the petitioner had sold the said coal to be lifted
from Kedla OCP colliery on 01.05.2020 to one M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo,
Gaya, Bihar and for transportation of the same, the petitioner generated
GST Invoice on 01.05.2020 in the name of M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo, at
village Majholia, P.S. Aamas, Gaya, Bihar, and an E-Way Bill
01.05.2020.
17. It is the case of the petitioner that the coal was loaded on
the aforesaid two trucks from Kedla OCP on 01.05.2020 and the above
mentioned two trucks were in transit and headed to Gaya, both the
Vehicles of the petitioner were intercepted by the Police Officer, Ichak,
Hazaribagh on 02.05.2020 and on a baseless allegation that the vehicles
were engaged in illegal transportation of the minerals and both the
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
vehicle / trucks were detained by the police. Neither any proceeding
was initiated nor any seizure list was prepared.
18. It is further case of the petitioner that the papers produced
by the drivers such as the GST Invoices, E-Way bill and the transport
challan were not considered by the police officials and the writ
petitioner was asked to contact the respondent no.3-District Mining
Officer, Hazaribagh.
19. Thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh issued
letter no.341 dated 05.05.2020 informing the Police Officer-in-Charge,
Hazaribagh that a fine has been imposed upon Ten Vehicles (including
the two vehicles of the petitioner) as per the provisions of Jharkhand
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage)
Rules, 2017 for illegal transportation of the coal. The penalty imposed
qua truck being registration number JH-02AK-6930 was Rs,1,14,202/-
whereas for truck being registration number JH-02V-9431 was
Rs, 1,16,900/-. The quantum of penalty was double the amount of the
basic price of coal i.e. Rs.3065 per Metric Ton. Accordingly, petitioner
has deposited the said total penalty being Rs.2,31,102/-against both the
Vehicles, and only thereafter the vehicles were released.
20. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner-company for quashing of the impugned order dated
05.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.3-District Mining officer,
Hazaribagh as also for refund of the amount of Rs.2,31,102/- along
with the statutory interest.
21. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect and
after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of both the parties
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
is required to consider the issue that "whether the action of the State in
inflicting punishment of imposing penalty in terms of money from the
provision of Rule 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 as provided under
Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017 can be said to be just and proper in absence
of any provision to inflict punishment under the Rule 2017 in a case of
illegal transportation of the mines products (coal)?
22. But, before consideration of the aforesaid issues the legal
provision as required to be considered under MMDR Act, 1957, the
JMMC Rules, 2004 and Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal
Mining), Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
23. The Act 1957 has been enacted to provide for the
development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of
the Union.
24. The object of MMDR Act 1957 has been taken note by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India,
(2017) 9 SCC 499 wherein it has been observed as under:
"84. Briefly therefore, the overall purpose and
objective of the MMDR Act as well as the Rules framed
thereunder is to ensure that mining operations are
carried out in a scientific manner with a high degree of
responsibility including responsibility in protecting and
preserving the environment and the flora of the area.
Through this process, the holder of a mining lease is
obliged to adhere to the standards laid down under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the EPA as well
as the laws pertaining to air and water pollution and
also by necessary implication, the provisions of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short "the FC Act").
Exploitation of the natural resources is ruled out. If the
holder of a mining lease does not adhere to the
provisions of the statutes or the rules or the terms and
conditions of the mining lease, that person is liable to
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
incur penalties under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. In
addition thereto, Section 4-A of the MMDR Act which
provides for the termination of a mining lease is
applicable. This provides that where the Central
Government, after consultation with the State
Government is of the opinion that it is expedient in the
interest of regulation of mines and mineral
development, preservation of natural environment,
prevention of pollution, etc. then the Central
Government may request the State Government to
prematurely terminate a mining lease.
25. The reference of the definition as contained under section 3,
particularly, section 3 (hc) of MMDR Act, 1957 needs to be made
herein which defines a "Special Court" which means a Court of
Sessions designated as Special Court under sub-section (1) of section
30B.
26. Section 30B provides for constitution of Special Court in
which the State Government has been conferred with the power, for the
purpose of providing speedy trial of offences for contravention of the
sub-section 1 or sub-section 1A of Section 4, constitutes, by
notification as many Special Court as may be necessary for such
area/areas as may be specified in the notification.
27. Section 15 also needs to be referred herein which confers
power upon the State Government to make rules in respect of minor
minerals, for ready reference the same is being quoted hereunder as:
15. Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor
minerals.―(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules for, regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining
leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for
purposes connected therewith.
[(1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:―
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
(a) the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry
leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may be made and the
fees to be paid therefor;
(b) the time within which, and the form in which, acknowledgement of the
receipt of any such applications may be sent;
(c) the matters which may be considered where applications in respect of the
same land are received within the same day;
(d) the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which and the authority
by which quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions may
be granted or renewed;
(e) the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral
concessions;
(f) the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry leases, mining leases or
other mineral concessions to persons deputed by the Government for the
purpose of undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining
operations;
(g) the fixing and collection of rent, royalty, fees, dead rent, fines or other
charges and the time within which and the manner in which these shall be
payable;
(h) the manner in which rights of third parties may be protected (whether by
way of payment of compensation or otherwise) in cases where any such
party is prejudicially affected by reason of any prospecting or mining
operations;
(i) the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation such as
trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining
operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected
by the State Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of
rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the quarrying or
mining lease;
(j) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, a quarry lease,
mining lease or other mineral concession may be transferred;
(k) the construction, maintenance and use of roads power transmission lines,
tramways, railways, serial rope ways, pipelines and the making of
passage for water for mining purposes on any land comprised in a quarry
or mining lease or other mineral concession;
(l) the form of registers to be maintained under this Act;
(m) the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of quarry or mining
leases or other mineral concessions and the authority to which such
reports and statements shall be submitted;
(n) the period within which and the manner in which and the authority to
which applications for revision of any order passed by any authority
under these rules may be made, the fees to be paid therefore, and the
powers of the revisional authority; and
(o) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.]
(2) Until rules are made under sub-section (1), any rules made by a state
Government regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other
mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals which are in force
immediately before the commencement of these Act shall continue in
force.
[(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession
granted under any rule made under sub-section (1) shall pay royalty or
dead rent, whichever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or
consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the
State Government in respect of minor minerals:
Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty
or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during
any period of three years.]
5 [(4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1), (2) and sub-section (3), the
State Government may, by notification, make rules for regulating the
provisions of this Act for the following, namely:―
(a) the manner in which the District Mineral Foundation shall work for the
interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining under sub-
section (2) of section 9B;
(b) the composition and functions of the District Mineral Foundation under
sub-section (3) of section 9B; and
(c) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation by
concession holders of minor minerals under section 15A."
28. Section 21 of the Act of 1957 also needs to refer herein which
contains the provision for inflicting penalty in case of contravention of
the provision of sub-section 1 or sub-section 1A of section 4 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years
and with fine which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area,
for ready reference section 21 is being quoted hereunder as:
"21. Penalties.― [(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.
(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.]
(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.
[(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
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
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.
(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.]
(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."
1 [(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall
be cognizable.]
2 [Explanation.--On and from the date of commencement of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2021, the expression "raising,transporting or causing to raise or
transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in
this section, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or
transportany mineral by a person without prospecting licence,
mining lease or composite licence 3 [exploration licence] or in
contravention of the rules made under section 23C.]
29. It is evident from the provision of section 21 of the Act 1957
which is having six sub-rules and starts with the rules to deal with issue
of contravenes of provision of sub-section (1A) of section 4 and in such
circumstances the concern will be punishable of imprisonment for a
term which may extend to 5 years and with fine which may extend to
Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area.
30. We are skipping the provision of sub-section (2) and sub-
section (3) since, the issue in the present case is of illegal transportation
which has been dealt with under sub-section 4 of section 21 wherein it
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
has been provided that 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 on this behalf.
31. Sub-section (4A) of Section 21 thereof provides that any
mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle, or any other thing seized under sub-
section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by order of a Court
competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and
shall be disposed of in accordance with the direction of such Court.
32. Sub-section (6) provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence under
sub-section (1) shall be cognizable.
33. It is, thus, evident that section 21 of the Act 1957 is a Code in
itself enacted to deal with the issue of contravention of provision of
sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 of the Act of 1957 and
for the aforesaid purpose the power has been conferred to the Court as
would be evident from sub-section (4A).
34. The reference of the word "Court" as under sub-section (4A)
has been considered to be a Special Court
35. Section 23C of the Act of 1957 provides the conferment of
power to the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal
mining, transportation and storage of mineral, which is being referred
hereunder as:
[23C. Power of State Government to make rules for preventing
illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.―(1) The
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and
storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:―
(a) establishment of check-posts for checking of minerals under
transit; (b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the
quantity of mineral being transported;
(c) regulation of mineral being transported from the area granted
under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or a quarrying
licence or a permit, in whatever name the permission to excavate
minerals, has been given;
(d) inspection, checking and search of minerals at the place of
excavation or storage or during transit;
(e) maintenance of registers and forms for the purposes of these
rules; (f) the period within which and the authority to which
applications for revision of any order passed by any authority be
preferred under any rule made under this section and the fees to
be paid therefore and powers of such authority for disposing of
such applications; and
(g) any other matter which is required to be, or may be,
prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining,
transportation and storage of minerals.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30, the Central
Government shall have no power to revise any order passed by a
State Government or any of its authorised officers or any authority
under the rules made under sub-sections (1) and (2).]
36. Section 23C of the Act of 1957 contains a provision under
sub-section (2)(g) wherein it has been stipulated that any other matter
which is required to be or may be, prescribed for the purpose of
prevention of illegal mining, transportation, storage of minerals the
rule is to be framed.
37. The State Government, in exercise of power conferred under
section 15 of the Act of 1957, has enacted the rule being "Jharkhand
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004". The said rule contains a
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
provision under Rule 54, to which we are concerned herein, providing
therein to inflict penalty for illegal transportation and unauthorized
mining of the minor minerals.
38. One of the arguments, since, has been advanced on behalf of
the petitioner that rule 54 (5) deals with only minor minerals but as per
the definition of the minerals as under section 3 (ad) of the Act of 1957
which includes all minerals except mineral oils.
39. Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 contains six sub-provisions
which starts from sub-provision 1 wherein it has been provided that any
person, if found to be involved in carrying out the mining operation of
minor minerals or transportation against the rule, then there will be
punishment of one year or maximum Rs.50,000/- amount will be
inflicted by way of penalty.
40. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 54 of Rule 2004 is relevant herein since,
the same deals with the issue of transportation wherein it has been
provided that if any driver of any vehicle has been found to be carrying
out illegally the minor minerals and if failed to produce the relevant
challan before the competent officer or the Director, Mines or
Additional Director, Mines or Deputy Director, Mines or the
District/Assistant Mining Officer or the Collector or any authorized
officer delegated to the power by the State Government or he refused
to allow the inspection, then maximum one year punishment or the
doubled of the amount of the value of mines product or both can be
imposed.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
41. It is evident from the provision of Rule 2017 which contains
a provision under Rule 11 of search, seizure and confiscation which is
being quoted hereinbelow as:
Search, Seizure and Confiscation:-( i). The following officers are authorized
to stop, check, search and verify at any place/truck/Other Vehicle carrying
the minerals/ore from the mine or other source or storage and seize the same
as required within the jurisdiction as specified below:
(i) Additional Chief Secretary/ In the entire State.
Principal Secretary/Secretary/
Commissioner, Mines
(ii) Director of mines In the entire State.
(iii) Additional Director of mine -do-
(iv) Deputy Director of mine Within their respective jurisdiction
(v) District Collector/Deputy Within their respective jurisdiction
Commissioner
(vi) District/Assistant Mining Within their respective jurisdiction
Officer
(vii) Sub Divisional Magistrate/Any Within their respective jurisdiction /
Other officer authorized by the jurisdiction authorized by the
collector collector in the District
(viii) Mining Inspector -do-
(ix) In-charge check-gate -do-
(i) It shall be the responsibility of the mining lessee/dealers to ensure that
their carriers afford all assistance and co-operation for such inspection.
(ii) The dealer/lessee shall allow any competent authority/competent officer
or any such officer authorized by competent authority to inspect the place
where mining, storage and processing unit exists to verify the stocks of ore
and minerals and take sample or the abstract from the records maintained
by him.
(iii) Every dealer shall allow competent authority/competent officer or any
officer authorised by the Director, Mines/Commissioner, Mines or
Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Jharkhand to
enter and inspect the premises, where the mineral is kept or stored.
Inspection of such documents as desired in writing and furnishing of
information as directed in writing shall be obligatory for such dealer.
(iv)Every officer making a seizure, under these rules shall prepare a list of
minerals, tools, equipment, vehicles or any other article, so seized and
deliver a copy thereof signed by him to the person found in possession of
such minerals. Such officer shall keep such seized property under proper
custody with proper official seal and with detailed information.
(v)Any minerals, tool, equipment, vehicle or any thing seized shall be liable
to be confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy Commissioner of
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
the concerned district and shall be disposed of in accordance with direction
of such court.
42. Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017 provides the provision to impose
penalty which is being referred hereunder as:
"Penalties: (i) Any person, who contravenes any of the provision
of these rules, or buys or sells or store minerals except under and
in accordance with the terms and conditions of dealers
registration or who transports the minerals except as mentioned
in the transport challan or transport minerals without transport
challan shall be punishable as per provision made under JMMC
Rule, 2004 and as amended from time to time.
(ii) Whoever intentionally obstructs the competent officer or any
other officer in performing his duties under these rules, shall be
punishable with an imprisonment upto a term of one year or fine
which may extend to Rs 25000/- or with both."
43. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 13
of Rules, 2017 that any person, who contravenes any of the provision
of these rules or buys or sells or stores the minerals except under and
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the dealers registrations
or who transports the minerals except as mentioned in the transport
challan shall be punishable as per the provision under JMMC Rules,
2004 and as amended from time to time. The power of appeal and
revision has been provided under Rules 14 and 15 thereof.
44. It is, thus, evident after going through the provision of Rule
13 of the Rule of 2017 that the power has been conferred upon the
competent authority to inflict punishment in case of illegal
transportation of mines products as per the provision as provided under
JMMC Rules, 2004.
45. This Court, after going through all the provisions and on
harmonious appreciation of all the statutory provision, i.e, the Act of
1957 or the Rule of 2004 amended in the year 2017 or the Rules of
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
2017, it is the conclusion which has been arrived at by this Court that
the conferment of power in order to deal with the illegal mining
operation or the illegal transportation of the mines product the State has
been conferred with the power to institute a criminal case by initiating
the proceeding by seizure and the report is to be submitted before the
Court and thereafter the Court will to take cognizance as would be
evident from the perusal of section 21 of Act of 1957 in its entirety right
from sub-section (1) to sub-section (6) thereof.
46. The State has also been conferred with the power in terms of
the provision of section 15 of the Act of 1957 to enact the State Rules
and by virtue of the aforesaid provision the Rule 2004 has been framed
and consequently amended in the year 2017 and in subsequent years
also.
47. Section 23C (1) and 23 C (2) of the Act 1957 has further
conferred upon the State to deal with the issue of illegal transportation
of the mining products and by virtue of the said provision of the Act
1957, the Rules of 2017 has been formulated by the state of Jharkhand.
48. This Court has found by going through the provision of
section 21 of the Act of 1957 by which the power has been conferred
for initiation of the criminal proceeding while on the other hand the
power has also been conferred upon the State to make out the rule to
deal with the issue of illegal transportation along with other issues as
referred in section 23C (1) of the Act of 1957.
49. At this juncture it would be apt to refer herein that the statute
or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision
should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. Further, it
is the well-known principle of harmonious construction that effect
should be given to all the provisions and a construction that reduces
one of the provisions to a "dead letter" is not harmonious construction,
reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi,
(2001) 8 SCC 540. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is
being quoted as under:
"8. It is settled that for interpreting a particular provision of
an Act, the import and effect of the meaning of the words and
phrases used in the statute have to be gathered from the text, the
nature of the subject-matter and the purpose and intention of the
statute. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that
effort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding a
conflict and adopting a harmonious construction. The statute or
rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one
provision should be construed with reference to the other
provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought
to be achieved. The well-known principle of harmonious
construction is that effect should be given to all the provisions
and a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a "dead
letter" is not harmonious construction. With respect to law
relating to interpretation of statutes this Court in Union of
India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama [(1990)
1 SCC 277] held: (SCC p. 284, para 16)
"16. The paramount object in statutory interpretation
is to discover what the legislature intended. This
intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of
enactment in question. That does not mean the text is
to be construed merely as a piece of prose, without
reference to its nature or purpose. A statute is neither
a literary text nor a divine revelation. 'Words are
certainly not crystals, transparent and unchanged' as
Mr Justice Holmes has wisely and properly warned.
(Towne v. Eisner [245 US 418, 425 (1918)] ) Learned
Hand, J., was equally emphatic when he said: 'Statutes
should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid, but
with some imagination of the purposes which lie
behind them.' (Lenigh Valley Coal
Co. v. Yensavage [218 FR 547, 553] )"
50. This Court after going through the provision of the Act of
1957, therefore, is of the view, particularly, section 23C (1) and if under
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
the aforesaid provision any rule has been formulated by the State to
deal with the issue of illegal transportation of mining products, then
it would not be just and proper only to read out the provision of section
21 of the Act of 1957, rather the Rule has been formulated by the State
on the strength of the power conferred under section 23C (1) of the Act
of 1957, then there must be a harmonious construction of both the
provisions and once the Rule has been formulated, then it will upon the
wisdom of the State Government either to take recourse in case of
contravention of any of the provision of the Act by taking recourse as
provided under section 21 of the Act of 1957, or as per the Rule which
has been formulated herein as Rules of 2017 containing therein a
provision of Rule 13 which deals with inflicting of penalty as per the
provision as contained under JMMC Rules, 2004.
51. If the State in that circumstance has proceeded to issue
demand in case of illegal transportation of mines product by taking
recourse of the Rule 13 of Rules of 2017, the same cannot be said to be
in violation of the jurisdiction.
52. The jurisdiction, therefore, is very much available as per the
provision of Rule 13 of Rules of 2017 if read together with the
provision of 54 (5) of the JMMC Rule, 2004 as amended in 2017,
particularly, as referred in the provision of Rule 54 as has been referred
hereinabove.
53. It requires to refer herein that District Mining Officer having
the jurisdiction to take decision to impose penalty as per the provision
contained under Rule 13 of the Rule 2017 wherein such punishment is
to be taken in terms of the JMMC Rule, 2004 under which as per the
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
provision as contained under Rule 54 (5) the District Mining Officer
has been conferred with such power. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the District Mining Officer is having the jurisdiction in view
of the discussions made hereinabove.
54. Further it needs to refer herein that the definition of minerals
has been provided under section 3 (ad) of the Act of 1957 wherein the
minerals has been defined to include all the mineral except mineral oils.
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 54 of Rules of 2004 which refers about the minor
mineral since the action has been taken in view of the power conferred
under Rule 13 of Rule 2017 wherein the mineral has been defined under
Rule 2 (l) which means mineral of all types except the atomic minerals
in Part-B of the Schedule-1 of the Act of 1957.
55. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the power as
conferred under Rule 2017 has been taken recourse by the State as
provided under Rule 13, however, the punishment as per provision
made under JMMC Rules, 2004 has been referred therein and, as such,
there cannot be any confusion that only with respect to the omission of
punishment as provided/available the authority which has been
conferred with the power is to be taken into consideration leaving aside
the issue of mineral.
56. Further it requires to refer herein that even in case of the
illegal transportation of such minerals are being carried out, then who
will be the authority to check upon such illegal transportation, since, no
power has been vested upon any Central authority or even no
department in the nature of the mining department to run under the
control of the Central Government is available in any State and, as such,
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
the State if has come out with a provision by defining the word minerals
said to be in consonance with the definition as under the Act of 1957
as provided under section 3 (ad), then merely because the reference of
minor mineral is there it is not available for the writ petitioner to take
the ground that the concerned authority as referred in Rule 54(5) of
JMMC Rules, 2004 is only to deal with the minor minerals leaving
aside the major minerals.
57. Now this Court is adverting to the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner wherein the issue of competency to impose
the penalty by the impugned order has been raised.
58. It has been contended that the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention
of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 (herein
referred as Rule of 2017) read with the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 do not empower the District Mining Officer to
impose any penalty even if there is a violation of the 2017 Rules. The
power to punish has been entrusted to the Courts by the Rules 2017,
therefore, the fine which has been imposed by issuance of the impugned
order vide order dated 05.05.2020 by the District Mining Officer is per
se illegal.
59. While, on the other hand, the learned Advocate General
appearing for the State has contended that the said decision taken by
the State cannot be unjust and improper, rather it will be in accordance
with law in view of the stipulation made under the provision of Rule 13
of Rule of 2017 wherein the illegal storage and transportation of mines
product has been provided to be punishable as per the provision
incorporated under the JMMC Rule, 2004.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
60. It has been submitted that under the provision of Rule 2017,
there is no independent provision to punish and that is the reason it has
been stipulated in Rule 13 of Rule 2017 that such offence will be
punishable and punishment will be in terms of the Rule 54 of the JMMC
Rule, 2004.
61. It has further been contended that the Statute since provides
to inflict punishment in terms of money or by instituting a criminal case
which can be instituted under the provision of Rule 54 but it depends
upon the wisdom of the State that instead of instituting a case under the
provision of JMMC Rule, 2004, or the punishment in terms of money
by not instituting a criminal case as per the provision of Rule 13 of Rule
2017, as such , the penalty imposed by the District Mining Officer
cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error.
62. The submission has been made by way of reason that since
the State is the custodian of the major and minor minerals and, as such,
it is upon the State to put deterrent in the illegal transportation or illegal
storage of the mines product, coal herein, and in that view of the matter
wisdom of the State, if the decision has been taken to punish the
offender in terms of money, then the same cannot be said that the State
has acted without any jurisdiction, rather the State will not act on the
basis of the same and institute criminal case, then it is the State who
will be at loss in case of illegal transportation of mining product and
illegal storage thereof.
63. Another reason has been shown that if the statutory provision
is there, then on the basis of the purposive construction of the statutory
provision the conclusion is to be arrived at by taking into consideration
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
the statutory provision as contained in the Act/Rule so as to achieve the
object and intent.
64. Further it requires to refer herein that the wrong doer cannot
be permitted to instruct the State to choose the particular proceeding to
deal with the cases of illegal transportation or illegal storage.
65. As we have already referred hereinabove that section 21(1) of
the Act of 1957 is having the word, "punishable with imprisonment".
The same is the reference made under section 21(2), which suggests,
that in case of violation of the provision of Section 4 (1A) of the
MMDR ACT, 1957 the case is to be instituted under section 21(1)
before the concerned Court for the purpose of inflicting punishment of
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine
which may extend to Rs. 5 lakhs per hectare of the area or both.
66. The provision as contained under rule 54 (1) as provided
under the JMMC Rules, 2004, provide punishment for imprisonment
for a period of one year or fine of Rs. 50,000/- or both.
67. Rule 54 (5) of Rule 2004 is having with the reference of the
competent officer wherein the power has been conferred to impose
punishment to the extent of one year.
68. The provision of section 23C of the Act 1957 for the purpose
of looking into the issue of illegal transportation and illegal storage,
since, comes under the fold of the 23C(g), i.e, for any other purposes
the legislation is to be formulated.
69. The object of the Rule 2017 and as per the caption head it is
very apparent that the purpose for its enactment is to deal with the
illegal transportation as also the illegal storage of the mine products.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
70. The competent authority/competent officer has been
conferred with the power as provided under Rule 11(i) to (v) of the Rule
of 2017.
71. The provision as contained under Rule 11 of the Rule 2017 is
being referred for the purpose of exercise of the power of the competent
authority to deal with the issue of illegal transportation and illegal
storage of the mine product.
72. Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 provides for penalty in case of
intercepting any offence of irregularity of any illegal transportation or
storage of the coal mines, then the same has been stipulated to be
punishable and punishment is to be provided as per the provision as
contained under the JMMC Rules 2004.
73. No doubt, therefore, under the Rule of 2017 there is no
provision carved out by making reference of any penal provision and
that is the reason the reference has been made that the offence of illegal
transportation or illegal storage is punishable as per the provision of
JMMC Rules, 2004.
74. No doubt, the JMMC Rule, 2004 does not contain any
provision to punish the illegal doers who have been found to be
involved in illegal transportation or illegal storage of the mine product,
coal herein, save and except the provision as contained under rule 54
of the JMMC Rules, 2004.
75. Rule 54 starts from the sub-provision (1) wherein the
punishment has been provided of one year imprisonment or a fine or
Rs. 50,000/- thereafter the sub-provision (2), 3, 4 provide seizure of the
vehicles/tools and arresting of the concerned person by the competent
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
officer whereas the quantum of punishment has been provided under
Rule 54 (5).
76. Rule 54 of JMMC Rules, 2004 reads as under:
"[54, लघु खनिज ों के अिानिकृत उत्खिि तथा परिवहि के नलए दण्ड (1)
क ई भी व्यक्ति, ज इि नियम ों के नवरूद्ध लघु खनिज ों का उत्खिि किते
है अथवा उसकी ओि से यनद नकसी एजेण्ट, मैिेजि, कममचािी अथवा
ठे केदाि द्वािा ऐसा उत्खिि, अथवा परिवहि नकया जाता है त ऐसा प्रत्येक
व्यक्ति अवैि खिि में भागीदाि समझा जाएगा तथा ऐसे व्यक्तिय ों क
अनिकतम एक वर्म कैद अथवा अनिकतम 50,000/- पचास हजाि रूपये
जुमामिा अथवा द ि ों सजाएँ दी जा सकेगी।
[(2) यनद क ई व्यक्ति इि नियम ों के प्राविाि ों का उल्लोंघि किते हुए खनिज
का उत्खिि किता है त सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अथवा अिुमोंडल
पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल अनिकािी अथवा समाहर्त्ाम अथवा आयुि अथवा
िाज्य सिकाि द्वािा प्रानिकृत क ई पदानिकािी ऐसे अपिाि कििे में प्रयुि
सभी औजाि, सयोंत्र एवों वाहि के साथ लघु खनिज ों क जब्त कि सकते हैं।
[(3) सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल
अनिकािी के द्वािा नििा नकसी दों डानिकािी के आदे श अथवा नििा नकसी
नगिफ्तािी वािण्ट के ऐसे व्यक्ति क नगिफ्ताि नकया जा सकेगा, ज इि
नियम ों का उल्लोंघि किते हुए लघु खनिज ों का उत्खिि अथवा परिवहि
किते हुए पाया जाता है।
[(4) सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा अिुमोंडल पदानिकािी अथवा अोंचल
अनिकािी उप नियम (2) के तहत नगिफ्ताि नकए गए व्यक्ति क , उस व्यक्ति
द्वािा नकए गए अपिाि के सोंिोंि में एक नलक्तखत नशकायत पत्र के साथ
सोंिोंनित थािे के अनिकािी क स प
ों ेगा ज उस मामले में क्षेत्रानि काि वाले
न्यानयक दण्डानिकािी के समक्ष 24 घोंटे के भीति प्रस्तुत कििा सुनिनित
किे गा।]
[(5) "यनद नकसी वाहि का क ई चालक लघु खनिज क परिवहि किते
समय सक्षम पदानिकािी अथवा निदे शक, खाि अथवा अपि निदे शक, खाि
अथवा उपनिदे शक खाि अथवा नजला/सहायक खिि पदानिकािी अथवा
समाहताम अथवा समाहताम या िाज्य सिकाि द्वािा प्रानिकृत नकसी
पदानिकािी क प्रपत्र 'एम' अथवा झािखण्ड खनिज समिुदाि नियमावली,
2004 के अोंतगमत फामम 'डी' में परिवहि चालाि नदखािे में असफल िहता है
अथवा नििीक्षण से इन्काि किता है , त उसे अनिकतम 01 वर्म की कैद
अथवा खनिज मूल्य की द गुिी िानश के ििािि दण्ड अथवा द ि ों एक साथ
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
दण्ड नदया जा सकता है तथा दू सिी एवों तीसिी िाि वैि परिवहि चालाि
प्रस्तुत िहीों नकय जािे पि उपि ि के अनतरिि दण्ड की िानश क्रमशः
50,000.00 (पचास हजाि) रूपये एवों 1,00,000/-(एक लाख) रूपये
ह गी।' जाोंच कििे वाले पदानिकािी द्वािा अवैि परिवहि किते पायें जािे
पि वाहि क खनिज सनहत जप्त नकया जाएगा तथा नजसे नकसी सिकािी
प्रनतष्ठाि में अथवा स्थािीय थािा प्राोंगण में सुिनक्षत िखा जाएगा। सक्षम
पदानिकािी द्वािा अवैि परिवहिकताम के उपि ि दण्ड शुल्क एवों इस
आशय का िोंि पत्र (Bond Paper) समनपमत नकए जािे पि नक न्यायालय
द्वािा ि नटस नदए जािे पि उपक्तस्थत ह ग
ों े, वाहि क खनिज सनहत छ डा जा
सकता है , पिन्तु अवैि परिवहिकताम पि नियमािुकूल कािम वाई हेतु इसकी
सूचिा न्यायानयक दण्डानिकािी क दी जाएगी। िोंि पत्र का प्रपत्र निदे शक,
खाि द्वािा अलग से परिचानलत नकया जाएगा।
'[(6) क ई भी व्यक्ति नजसके पास, वैि खिि पट्टा/अिुमनत-पत्र िहीों है , यनद
वह लघु खनिज ों का निष्कासि किता है अथवा इि नियम ों के नवरूद्ध
उसकी ओि से क ई एजेण्ट, मैिेजि या नकसी ठे केदाि के द्वािा ऐसा
निष्कासि नकया जाता है त वह लघु खनिज ों के अवैि निष्कासि का आि पी
ह गा तथा उससे [खनिज ों के मूल्य की दु गुिी िानश] के ििािि तक का दण्ड
वसूलिीय ह गा साथ ही सिकाि ऐसे व्यक्ति से जैसा नक मामला ििता ह ,
भूनम पि नििा वैि प्रानिकािी की अिुमनत से नकए गये कब्जे की अवनि का
लगाि, स्वानमस्व या कि की वसूली नकसी अन्य कािूि या नियम ज उस
वि लागू ह , में उसके नवरूद्ध की जािे वाली कािम वाई के पूवामग्रह के नििा
की जा सकेगी।"
77. The seminal question which is the issue herein is as to
whether the competent authority as per the competency as provided
under Rule 11 of Rule 2017, can exercise its jurisdiction by raising
demand in consequence of penalty by taking recourse of the provision
of 54 (5) of the JMMC Rules while imposing penalty as provided under
Rule 13 of the Rule 2017.
78. We have already referred hereinabove that the MMDR Act,
1957 has been enacted for the purpose of development of the mining
resources and its regulation and conservation and prudent exploitation
of minerals. The scope of MMDR Act, 1957 or the frames whereunder
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
either by the Central Government or the State Government is for the
purpose of regulating the issue of illegal mining. But what will happen
in a case where the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the
minerals is going on.
79. In the Central Government Legislation and in order to deal
with the aforesaid eventually the prosecution can be lodged in view of
the provision of section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 to deal with the
issue of illegal transportation or storage or caused to be transported or
stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provision of
this Act and the rules made thereunder as referred in section 4(1A).
80. Section 21(1) of the Act 1957 is the recourse to be taken in
case of the violation if found on subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of
section 4 by inflicting punishment with imprisonment for a term which
extends to five years.
81. The provision as contained under section 21 of the Act of
1957 is to deal with the issue of transportation or storage considered
under the Statute to be restricted and in contravention thereof the
penalty is to be imposed as provided under section 21.
82. Further, the State being the custodian of the minerals and in
order to deal with the illegal transportation or illegal storage of the
minerals has been conferred with the power to formulate a rule under
section 23C of the Act of 1957 and based upon that a specific rule has
been formulated by way of JMMC Rules of 2017.
83. The power of search, seizure and confiscation has been given
for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining, transportation or
storage conferring power to the competent authority/competent officer.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
84. The competent authority has been defined under Rule 2(c) of
the Rule of 2017 which means the Additional Chief Secretary, Principal
Secretary, Secretary, Mines Commissioner and Director, Mines
appointed or authorized by the State Government.
85. The competent officer has been defined under Rule 2(d)
which means the Deputy Commissioner of the district and
District/Assistant Mining Officer of the district or any Gazetted officer
authorized by the Deputy Commissioner of the district.
86. The competent authority/competent officer or any such
officer authorized by the competent authority by virtue of Rule 11 of
Rule of 2017 has been conferred with the power to inspect the place
where mining, storage or processing unit exist to verify the stock of ore
and minerals and take sample or inspect the record maintained by him.
87. Thus, the power has been conferred of making search and
seizure in order to deal with the issue of illegal storage along with the
illegal transportation. If such eventuality is found to be there, then the
competent authority has been conferred with the power to penalize as
per the provision made under the JMMC Rules, 2004 as provided under
Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.
88. We have already referred that under the JMMC Rules of 2017
there is no penalty provided and that is the reason the Statute after
taking care of the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been incorporated
under Rule 13 for imposing punishment as per the provision made
under the JMMC Rules, 2004.
89. It needs to refer herein that since we are dealing with the issue
of the illegal transportation and for the aforesaid purpose a specific rule
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
has been formulated in the light of the provision of section 23C of
MMDR Act, 1957 and, hence, the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 as
per the reference made thereof under Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 is being
considered and in view of the fact that a criminal case is to be instituted
if the State wishes to institute a criminal case as per the provision made
under section 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957.
90. Herein, as would be evident from the factual aspect that the
competent authority has exercised the jurisdiction under Rule 13 of
Rule, 2017 as has been referred in the impugned order dated
05.05.2020. Hence, we are considering the issue by taking into
consideration the Rule of 2017 along with the JMMC Rules, 2004 as
also with the object to put deterrence in the illegal transportation of
minerals or its illegal storage.
91. Since we are dealing with the object and intent of the natural
resources and for the aforesaid purpose the MMDR Act, 1957 has been
enacted which contains the conferment of power to the State by way of
the custodian to regulate. The same is a primary object of the State in
view of the fact that there is no independent establishment of the
Central Government in any State to look into the issue of regulating the
transportation or storage of the minerals and, therefore, in that
circumstances the accountability upon the State has become wide as to
how to protect and regulate the illegality if has been found to be
committed either in the matter of illegal transportation or illegal storage
of the minerals.
92. This Court is of the view that if there is any lacuna in the
statutory provision as has been pointed out even accepting the same the
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
illegal doer cannot be allowed to take any aid thereof, rather in such
circumstances the principle of harmonious construction is to be applied
for the purpose of securing the object and intent of the basic object
which have been formulated for its regulation as in the present case by
way of MMDR Act, 1957 which basic object is to develop the natural
resources along with its regulation..
93. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the State is having no authority, to impose punishment in terms of
money save and except the case is to be instituted in view of the
provision of Rule 54 (1) of JMMC Rules, 2004, if the penalty is to be
imposed under the provision of Rule 13 of Rules of 2017.
94. But we are not in agreement with such submission due to the
reason that the illegal doer cannot instruct the State to take recourse of
provision where the issue of regulation of the object is there, herein
minerals, as per the object of MMDR Act, 1957.
95. The institution of the criminal case will be by way of
inflicting punishment upon the offender but how to compensate the
illegal extraction of the minerals or its illegal transportation or illegal
storage that is the question which is to be considered. Instituting a
criminal case no doubt can also be resorted to, but can it be said that
only remedy available to the State to institute a criminal case.
96. Will it not be said that by going through the provision of the
MMDR Act, 1957, JMMC Rules, 2004 and Rules of 2017 that the State
can also go for penalizing the illegal doer by penalizing in terms of
money in addition by instituting a criminal case.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
97. The State, in the present case has taken recourse of the Rule
13 of the Rule of 2017 whereby the punishment is to be imposed as per
the JMMC Rules, 2004 and the only provision made under JMMC
Rules, 2004 is provided under Rule 54 as referred herein above.
98. So long as the provision of Rule 13 of Rule of 2017 is not held
to be ultra vires, it is not available for anybody to come and take the
plea that there is no application of the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004
as it has specifically been referred as Rule 13 of the Rule of 2017.
99. If otherwise punishment as available under the JMMC Rules,
2004 other than as provided under the Rule 54(5), then the matter could
be understood but that is not the factual situation, rather only provision
provided under Rule 54 (5) wherein one year imprisonment and the
word or alternatively the punishment can be imposed in terms of
money.
100. The word "अथवा", therefore, is constituted to be alternatively
of imposing punishment which is to be inflicted by the Court of Law.
101. The meaning of "अथवा" would be alternative for the reason of
the specific reference made under the provision of Rule 13 of Rule,
2017 that the punishment is to be inflicted as per the provision made
under JMMC Rules, 2004.
102. In the JMMC Rules, 2004 there is no other provision save and
except the Rule 54(5) which is in aid to the Rule 13 of Rule 2017.
Further, under the Rule of 2017 as per Rule 11 the conferment of power
of search and seizure has been vested upon the competent authority
/competent officer, the executive functionary who is to search and seize
the minerals as also inflict penalties as per the JMMC Rule 2004.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
103. The aforesaid provision, therefore, clarifies that if the power
has been conferred upon the executive authority having competent
jurisdiction as provided under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2017, then
certainly such power is to be exercised under the provision of JMMC
Rules, 2004 and, hence, the word "अथवा" will be constituted to be
alternatively so as to exercise the said power by the executive authority
having competency to punish such illegar doer in terms of money by
imposing fine.
104. It is also being clarified herein that the purport of Rule 54 (1)
of JMMC Rules, 2004 is to be interpreted for the purpse of giving
effectiveness to the provision of Rules of 2017 is to be trated to be in
two part, i.e., conferring the power of the State either to go for by
instituting criminal case in pursuance to provision of Rule 54(1) of
JMMC Rules, 2004 or if the competent authoirity has conducted search
and seizure, then in such circumstances the section 54 (1) with 54(5) of
JMMC Rules, 2004 is also to be taken to be exercised then only it will
be said that effectiveness being given to the mandate of Rules 11 and
13 of the Rules of 2017.
105. It needs to refer herein that the underlying principle that the
act is to be read out harmoniously and not by picking one prevailing
upon the another otherwise the principle of harmonious construction
will be frustrated as has been referred hereinabove in the preceding
paragraphs.
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
106. The day when JMMC Rule, 2004 was enacted at that time
there is no existence of Rules of 2017 and in that way of the matter
there are no dispute that who is to proceed in case of violation if the
proceeding has been instituted under Rule 54(1).
107. The situation will be considered after the enactment of
provision of Rules of 2017 wherein the power has been conferred to
the executive authority by insertion of the applicability of the
provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 and as such the moment the
executive authority has been conferred with the power, then the
reference of punishment or the imposing fine wherein the word
"अथवा" is there to be read alternatively in pursuance to the mandate
of Rules of 2017.
108. The issue is answered accordingly.
109. Since we have decided the issue of jurisdiction without
going into the factual aspect and, as such, is of the view that
jurisdictional aspect having been answered hereinabove the writ
petitioner is at liberty to avail the forum of appeal as provided under
Rule 14 of the Rules of 2017 in order to bring all these facts before the
concerned competent authority for its consideration in accordance with
law.
110. If such application will be filed within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the relevant
2025:JHHC:28087-DB
documents, then the appellate authority will decide the same in
accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of such application.
111. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ
petition stands disposed of.
112. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:12/09/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
