ADITYA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have prayed to declare Rule 11(i) read with Rule 11(iv) and Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 as ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (which is the parent Act) to the extent it provides for seizure of mineral tools, equipments and vehicles. Further a prayer has been made to declare Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 which provides for confiscation of mineral tools, equipments and vehicles by the Deputy Commissioner of concerned district, as the same, according to the petitioners is ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Further declaration has been sought for from this Court to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner of any district is not empowered to confiscate minerals, tools, equipment and vehicles under the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. Further a prayer has been made to quash the order dtd. 25/7/2023, whereby exercising powers under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Confiscation Case No. 10 of 2022-23 has seized the vehicle of the petitioners bearing Registration No. JH 10CG 4140 along with 800 cft. of 5/8' stone chips [petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023]; Vehicle No. JH 10CH 6777 along with 800 cft. 5/8' stone chips [petitioner No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023]; JH 04X 8461 along with 800 cft. of 5/8' stone chips of [petitioner No.3 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023]; BR 10GB 8276, JH 15V 7205 and JH 04X 2825 [petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7531 of 2023]. ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the law relating to Mines and Minerals falls within the domain of Union Government as per Entry 54 of List 1 of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Central Government is vested with the power to promulgate laws in relation to mines and minerals. Though the State Government has been obligated to frame Rules under the aforesaid Act, but the provisions of the said Rules cannot contravene or transgress any of the provisions of the said Act. Rule making power of the State should be confined within the four corners of the power vested upon the State by the Central legislation and any derogation or deviation should be declared ultra vires. In the instant case, by virtue of the rule making power under Sec. 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the State Government is authorized to frame Rules, on amongst others, to regulate illegal mining, transportation and storage. The said Rules, which has been promulgated by the State of Jharkhand provides for confiscation of vehicle, mineral tools and equipments etc., if the same is used for raising and transporting minerals illegally. As per the Rules, confiscating authority is the Deputy Commissioner of each of the districts. As per the counsel for the petitioners, this provision is ultra vires the parent Act, i.e., Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as Sec. 21(4A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act empowers a different authority to confiscate the minerals tools and the vehicles. Since there is a conflict between the parent Act, framed by the Parliament, and the Rules framed by the State, to the extent it is in derogation or is in excess of the parent Act, should be declared ultra vires. It is his contention that once it is held that the Deputy Commissioner has got no authority or power to confiscate, the process of confiscation should also be struck down. As per him, the Deputy Commissioner does not have any power to confiscate the mineral tools, equipments, vehicles etc. ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS-STATE

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the parent Act, i.e., Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act gives power to the State to frame Rules to check illegal mining and transportation of illegally mined mineral. By virtue of the power, which has been granted to the State by Sec. 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 has been promulgated. Since the aforesaid Rules has been promulgated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the State has been delegated a power to frame Rules under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, it cannot be said that the power to confiscate given to the Deputy Commissioner of each district is ultra vires. Learned counsel for the State submits that the power of confiscation under the Act of 1957 is separate and independent of the Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. Since the provisions of both, the Act and the Rules operate in different fields, there is no repugnancy. As per the State, both powers are different and cannot be equated. It has been further argued that if the seizure is under the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, then it will be the Court taking cognizance, who can confiscate the vehicle, tools, ores and minerals, but if the confiscation is under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, then it will be the Deputy Commissioner of each of the district under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, thus, there cannot be any confusion on this issue. It is the contention of the State that the Rule 11 is within the four corner of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and there is no ground to declare them ultra vires. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS