PRANAV MOHANAN Vs. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's goods carriage vehicle was seized by the officers under the 1st respondent - Geologist, alleging transportation of minerals illegally. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgment regarding the seizure of vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, what was seized is an empty vehicle from the premises of one 'Deepam Granite Industries', Kurrupampady. The petitioner would further canvass a case that he was about to return from the premises with empty vehicle, upon being informed that the said Granite Industries has no valid GST registration, at which time the vehicle was seized. The petitioner seeks heavy reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in District Collector vs. Unais dtd. 29/3/2023 in W.A. No.609/2023 to contend that, even in cases where there is intention to transport minerals, the penal provisions will not attract. On such premise, the petitioner seeks issuance of a certiorari quashing Ext.P2 and seeking release of the petitioner's goods carriage vehicle.

(2.) Sri.Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment in Unais (supra) is eloquent with respect to the interpretation of Sec. 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'M.M.D.R Act'). It was argued that a mere intention to transport, even if it is assumed, is not sufficient to attract the penalty under Sec. 21(4). The vehicle should have commenced movement to constitute transport, so as to attract the penalty under Sec. 21(4). Learned counsel would argue that the vehicle was empty at the time of seizure and it was not seized during the course of movement. According to the learned counsel, 'transport' as per Sec. 21(4) will not be attracted except with movement of the vehicle and there cannot be any transportation, unless the movement commences. On these two counts, the learned counsel would submit that the penalty under Sec. 21(4) is not attracted. Even going by the case of the respondents that the vehicle was kept at the premises of 'Deepam Granite Industries', with the intention of transportation, an offence is not made, as emphatically held in Unais (supra), is the final submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On such premise, the petitioner seeks the reliefs to be granted.

(3.) This argument was seriously opposed by Sri.Ajith Viswanathan, learned Government Pleader, pointing out that the vehicle was not empty at the time of its seizure. Learned Government Pleader would hand over a copy of the Mahazar, as per which the vehicle was seized, to argue that the vehicle was loaded at the time of its seizure by the Geologist herself and that the mineral was unloaded at the quarry itself, before taking the vehicle to the 2nd respondent - Station House Officer. Secondly, it was argued by the learned Government Pleader that any person who 'raises' or 'transports' or causes the same to be done without lawful authority will be answerable in terms of Sec. 21(4) of the Act. It was specifically pointed out that no enabling transit pass was produced by the driver of the petitioner, when the vehicle was seized, which would obviously indicate that the transportation was without any lawful authority. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the matter has been reported to the learned Magistrate by the Geologist and the petitioner has to seek his remedy before the learned Magistrate. According to the learned Government Pleader, there exist no compelling circumstances warranting invocation of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.