NIHAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present petition is aggrieved against forfeiture of Vehicle No. MP 04 K 8796 in terms of Rule 53 (3) (b) of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). The vehicle has been ordered to be forfeited for the reason that the vehicle was engaged in illegal extraction of mineral.

(2.) The petitioner admits that the Driver has not paid the amount of royalty though the amount was given to him. Therefore, it is beyond dispute that the vehicle in question was carrying illegal extracted mineral. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vehicle can be forfeited only if the penalty as contemplated in subrule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules is not paid. Therefore, the forfeiture of vehicle without imposition of penalty is contrary to scheme of the Rules as amended on 18th May, 2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.18818/2017 (Ramkumar Sahu vs. The State of M.P. And others) wherein the legality and validity of Rule 53 substituted vide notification dated 18th May 2017 has been upheld. The argument of the petitioner is that the judgment has upheld the Rules for the reason that the graded amount of penalty is imposed with each subsequent violation of the Rules and that the forfeiture of the vehicle in the very first instance is not contemplated.