Procedural amendment may govern pending mineral penalty proceedings, but retrospective penalty application requires clear statutory authority.

A procedural amendment to Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 could govern pending penalty matters as it changed the forum and mode of inquiry, and no vested right exists in a particular procedural forum. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore competent to proceed under the amended framework. However, the amendment could not be used retrospectively to impose penalty on the basis of inspections and notices issued before the amendment came into force, because retrospectivity in penal provisions must be clearly provided or necessarily implied. The penalty order was set aside to that extent and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the applicable law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to initiate and decide the penalty proceedings under the amended Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996; (ii) whether the amended Rule 53 could be applied retrospectively to impose penalty on the basis of inspections and notices issued before the amendment came into force.

Issue (i): whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to initiate and decide the penalty proceedings under the amended Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996.

Analysis: The amended Rule 53 expressly empowered the Collector or an officer authorised by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector to determine contravention and impose penalty, and the change of forum from the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer was treated as a matter of procedure. Since no vested right exists in a particular procedural forum, the amended procedural framework could govern pending matters.

Conclusion: The Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to proceed under the amended rule.

Issue (ii): whether the amended Rule 53 could be applied retrospectively to impose penalty on the basis of inspections and notices issued before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed by treating the amended provisions as having retrospective operation, although the inspection and show-cause foundation predated the amendment. The governing principle is that statutes are prima facie prospective unless retrospective operation is expressly or necessarily intended, and a procedural amendment may apply to pending matters only to the extent it regulates procedure and forum, not by altering the substantive basis of penalty for prior acts.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 53 could not be applied retrospectively to the substantive penalty in the manner done in the impugned order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in part: the impugned penalty order was set aside to the extent it applied the amended penalty retrospectively, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the applicable law, after hearing the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural amendment altering the forum or mode of inquiry may apply to pending matters, but a penalty cannot be imposed by giving retrospective effect to a substantive amendment unless such retrospectivity is clearly provided or necessarily implied.

---