RAMVEER Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instructions filed today be kept on record.

(2.) From the record, we find that the tractor trolley of the petitioner being vehicle No. UP 83 AU 1915 was apprehended by the police of Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad and an information was sent to the petitioner that the vehicle was seized for violation of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, it was challaned under Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner filed an application for release of the vehicle before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad on 7/2/2023 stating that the vehicle was required for agricultural purposes. Thereafter a police report was called for and the police also submitted its report on 7/2/2023 stating that the vehicle was seized under Sec. 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 7/2/2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate released the vehicle. When, however, the vehicle was not being released, the petitioner applied before the District Magistrate and informed him that even though he was carrying certain minerals legally, the vehicle had been confiscated despite the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dtd. 7/2/2023. Thereafter instead of releasing the vehicle, the District Magistrate on 25/2/2023 passed the impugned order by which the price of the mineral found, the royalty on it and the penalty were asked for. Also the matter was referred to the department dealing with environmental pollution. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the order impugned dtd. 25/2/2023, on the face of it, was erroneous on account of the fact that before any order was passed and before the vehicle was confiscated/impounded under the provisions of U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage), Rules 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "2018 Rules"), the petitioner was not provided with any show-cause notice. He submits that before the petitioner was saddled with financial liability, he should have been heard. Learned counsel to bolster his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others1969 (2) SCC 262. Since learned counsel relied heavily upon paragraph 20 it is being reproduced here as under :