TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1643
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imposed the penalty under sub-rule (5) of Rule 53 of Rules of 1996 read with Section 247(7) of MPLR Code, 1959 to the writ petitioner. 3. This order has been assailed by the petitioner, on the ground that, Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Ratlam, was having no jurisdiction to impose the penalty under Rule 53(5) of the Rules of 1996. The aforesaid provision provides for composition of the matter and not for imposition of the penalty. The penalty could have been imposed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of 1996 and that too by the Magistrate and not by the Sub-Divisional Office concerned. 4. Per contra, Shri H.Y. Mehta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents - State though supported the impugned order on the ground that by the said order, the petitioner could have invoked the jurisdiction of appellate authority by challenging the impugned order in appeal under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1996. It is also submitted that the Government of M.P. in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, makes further amendments in the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, which came into force w.e.f. 18.5.2017 and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carrying out mining operation outside of the grant and demarcated area. It is also observed that he was in possession of 1.130 hectares, which is outside of the grant area. They also found that the petitioner illegally extracted the mineral outside of the grant area. On the basis of the aforesaid inspection, a show cause notice dated 13.10.2017 was issued under Rule 53(5) of Rules of 1996 by the Sub-Divisional Officer for imposition of penalty of the alleged offence of illegal mining activities carried out by the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner be not punished with penalty of ten times of the market value under Rule 53(5) of Rules of 1996 read with Section 247 (7) of MPLR Code and why the petitioner be not prosecuted and seized mineral be not forfeited. 8. A detailed reply was filed and on opportunity of hearing he submitted that he has not illegally extracted the aforesaid minerals and he being lessee, no action can be taken against him. The SDO (R), after going through the reply found that there was violation of sub-rule (I) of Rule 53 and directed imposition of penalty to the tune of ten times of the market p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... determines that such person has extracted / transported the minerals in contravention of the provisions of these rules, then he shall impose the penalty in the following manner, namely :- (a) on first time contravention, a penalty of minimum 30 times of the royalty of illegally extracted / transported minerals, shall be imposed but it shall not be less than ten thousand rupees. (b) on second time contravention a penalty of minimum 40 times of the royalty of illegally extracted/ transported minerals shall be imposed but it shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees. (c) on third time contravention, a penalty of minimum 50 times of the royalty of illegally extracted/ transported minerals shall be imposed but it shall not be less than thirty thousand rupees. (d) on third time or subsequent contravention, a penalty of minimum 70 times of the royalty of illegally extracted/ transported minerals, shall be imposed but it shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees. (2) Forfeiture of minerals in cases of illegal excretion and transportation.- In respect of the Forfeiture/discharge of the mineral extracted/ transported illegally the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harge (Flying Squad)/Sub Divisional officer (Revenue)/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar and any other officer not below the rank of class-III executive authorized by the Collector from time to time shall proceed to act in the following manner:- (a) to initiate case of unauthorized extraction/transportation by preparing Panchnama on spot; (b) to collect necessary evidences (including video-graphy) relevant to un-authorized extraction/transportation; (c) to seize all tools, devices, vehicles and other materials used in excavation of miner mineral in such contravention and to handover all material so seized to the persons or lessee or any other person from whose possession such material was seized on executing an undertaking up to the satisfaction of the officer seizing such material, to this effect that he shall forthwith produce such material as and when may be required to do so: Provided that where the report is submitted under sub-rule (3) above to the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector authorized by him, the seized property shall only be discharged by the order of the Collector or the officer authorized by him. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted minerals or rupees 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) whichever is more, and (d) For the fourth time or subsequent violation minimum 65 time of royalty of unlawfully extracted/transported. Provided that it should not be less than rupees 50,000/- (Fifty thousand). On being compounded, the seized mineral, tools machinery/and other materials shall be discharged. (7) Action against contravention of conditions of extract trade quarry/quarry lease/permit or the provisions of this rules: If during the enquiry of any illegal extraction/transportation a fact comes into the knowledge that any lease holder/contractor/permit holder, in order to evade the royalty from any sanctioned quarry lease/trade quarry/permit area is involved in dispatching/selling of minerals in excess quantity by showing less quantity of minerals in transit pass/defective transit permit/blank transit permit, then the Collector of the concerned district may suspend the quarrying operation in such quarry lease/trade quarry permit by issuing show cause notice for violating the conditions of the agreement and after providing an opportunity of being heard may cancel the such lease/trade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had not moved to the Collector for compounding the matter, so the SDO was not empowered to invoke the power under sub-Rule (5) of Rule 53. So far as, the stand of the State Government that after amendment in Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, the SDO is empowered to impose the fine against the petitioner. 14. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption of prospectivity articulated in the legal maxim 'nova constitutio futuris forman imponere debet non praeteritis', i.e. ' a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past', and this presumption operates unless shown to the contrary by express provision in the statute or is otherwise discernible by necessary implication. 15. In M/s. Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad V/s. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1987 SC 1364, the Apex Court considered the effect of amendment introduced to Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 on certain previous actions. It was held that proceedings could be initiated for adjudication under the amended law even in regard to a v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rules in force on the date of disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application." (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the case in hand, by the impugned order the Sub- Divisional Officer imposed the penalty on the basis of panchnama dated 27.8.2016 and notice (Annexure P/3) dated 9.12.2016, on the basis of joint demarcation done by the mining authorities in presence of the petitioner. As per para 1 of the impugned order, a joint inspection team was constituted on 12.8.2016 and thereafter, they in presence of the petitioner and mining department inspected the area on 27.8.2016 and 28.8.2016, respectively whereas, the Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 was amended w.e.f. 18.5.2017. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others V/s. Bhajan Kaur & Others, AIR 2008 SC 2276 has held that amendment increasing compensation for no fault liability in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not retrospective. 19. It is also well settled that if the new Act affect the matters of procedure only then, prima facie, it applies to all the actions pending as well as future. The Rules of 1996 prescribed particular procedure to compo....