ALOSHIAS C ANTONY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The power and authority of the concerned respondents (Police/Revenue/Mining and Geology Department) to seize the vehicles engaged in raising/transporting 'ordinary earth' in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957/Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act/KMMC Rules') is under challenge in all these writ petitions.

(2.) In some of the cases, intervention and seizure had been effected by the Police (Sub Inspector/Assistant Sub Inspector of Police) while in others, seizure had been effected by the Revenue Officials (RDO/Tahsildar/Village Officer) or by the officers under the Mining and Geology Department. In most of the cases, the main contention raised is that eventhough a notification had been issued by the State Government under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, authorizing the concerned respondents to be the authorised officers for filing complaint before the appropriate Court for taking cognizance thereof, no notification had been issued to effect seizure under Section 21(4) of the said enactment and hence the challenge.

(3.) The pleadings and proceedings are referred to, as given in W.P. (C) No. 24542/2013 for convenience of reference. The petitioners are either owners or drivers of the concerned vehicles (JCB, Tipper Lorries etc.). Their grievance is that they are raising and transporting 'ordinary earth', on the basis of valid permits issued by the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules. But the Police/Revenue Officials are quite arbitrarily intercepting the operations, simply as a measure of harassment and later charging them with the offences, alleging violation of the provisions of the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules. It is contended that the action is rather discriminatory as well, in so far as the respondents are not taking any action or causing any hindrance to similar activities being pursued by the Granite quarry owners/licencees, and in the case of other similarly situated persons, allegedly yielding to their political influence or for extraneous considerations. It is pointed out that, the power to effect seizure is entirely different-from the power and authority to file complaint before the competent Court in respect of the alleged offences. According to the petitioners, the power under the former head is wider than the power under the latter head and as such, special empowerment under Section 21(4) is necessary to seize the vehicles. It is sought to be asserted that, the MMDR Act/KMMC Rules being a special legislation, the general provisions Under Cr.P.C. are not attracted and in view of the absence of notification under Section 21(4) enabling seizure, the seizure and further proceedings are vitiated in toto and hence the challenge.