IN THE HIGH cwRT OF J'UnxcAz-‘URE AT JABALPURWJP) .. MW wRn' PETxTmN mofi’cz’m /2aoo. WRIT PET ITION UNDER ‘ARTICL’ES ‘226 & 227 OF COIQ3TITUTION OE ‘INDIA; PETITIGNERS a 1 Radheshyam, son of late suraj Pal singh aged about 3D years. Anees, son ¢f late Suraj Pal Slngh ageé about 25 years. Narayan Singh son of Naml, aged about 21 years. A11 res idents o£ village TangpaL Tahsil sukma, District BastartMP) . -VerS'uS- : 1 State 6f Madhya Fradesh, through the Secretary, Mines 8c Mineral Resources Departmmt, Vallabh Bha‘wan, Bhopal (MP) . RE3?OENTS ND 2 . Coll eat or; Bast ar. Jagdalpur, Distt .Bastar( MP) 3. Commiss ion er, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Bastar(MP) . * 1. PARTICULARS OE THE PETITIONERS$ um“, , _. " , 2‘ H!M GH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hoti’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra a WP. No. 5319 of 2mm Radheshyam and others. Versus v‘RAA A State of Madhya Pradesh and others. ORDER Past for o; - o; 2011 r Sdl- I " Frashant Kumar Mishr Judge xg-az-20‘H r" ( a ‘ HIGH COUR! OF CHHATTtsgARH, §JLASEUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. WP. Nc). 5819 of 2009 PETITIONERS Radheshyam and others. J Versus RESPONDEMTS State of Madhya Pradesh and others. Shri R.N. Jha, counsel for‘the petitioners. Shri RR. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State/reepondents. O R D E R (0l {03!2911) Foltowing order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Petitioners have caiied in question the orders passed by the Collector. Bastar on 24/03l2000 (Annexure Pl2) and the appeilate order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar (Annexure P/3). By these orders the authorities have directed for confiscation of 64 number Tin Metai weighting 483.200 Kg, as also the vehicie, jeep bearing No. MP25 B 1.375. Fine of Rs.4,30,048/- has also been imposed on the petitioners. Order has been passed in exercise of power under Section 4 and 21 (4) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957 (hereinaiter referred to ‘the Act, 19579 and under Section 247 (7) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereineifer referred to ‘the Code). (2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that when the subject jeep was intercepted and a search was carried on 15/03/2000, it was found to carry 64 numbers of Tin metal weighting 483.200 Kg. which was ‘kept in a box under the seat and was being taken towards Raipur. On the basis of report submitted by the Mining Officer, a show cause notice was issued which was served on petitioners No.2 and 3. however petitioner No.1 Es.“ , ,V , . a»? having been absconded, could not be noticed. Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the jeep and the petitioners No. 2 & 3 are the driver and deaner ~ respectively of the jeep. (3) The petitioners No.2 & 3 in their reply admitted that they were taking the Tin metai for seiiing the same in Orissa and that they have no vaiid document authorizing possession ofTin metal. (4) in the report submitted before the Collector the Mining Officer stated that the Tin meta! has been extracted from the forest area of village Kapanar and Marjum in the Tongpal forest range and that petitioner No.2 Anish (brother of petitioner No.1 Radheshyarn) has made statement before the Mining Ofhcer that Tin metal Was transported to Bargarh and the same has been extracted by using kiln in the forest area of Chitalnar and Jangarpal. The Metal was to be delivered to one Biju Seth at Bargath (Orissa) and the price was to be paid by the said Biju $eth in form of Bank Dratt in'the name of petitioner No.1 Radheshyam and that they have done soon two previous occasions also. (5) The Collector found that the petitioners are habitual in illegal extraction and transporting of Tin metal and there being no authority or lawful explanation for their illegal possession, directed connscation of the seized Tin metal, the jeep involved in the transportation and also the tine of Rs.4.30,048/-. (6) The petitioners had tiled two separate appeal which have been rejected by the Appellate Court. (7) Before the Appellate Court it was argued that the order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and without recording evidence and that the order is without jurisdiction. it has been observed §3_ by the Appellate Court that the petitioners therefore, no case for interference is made ou case where opportunity of hearing was not affo have admitted their guilt, tand the present is not a _ rded. equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority especiany empowered in this behah. (11) Section 247 of the Code provides that a" minera!s beiong to the State Government and any person who without iawful authority extracts or removes minerais from any mine or quarry. the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by, the Government, shall. without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be iiabie, on the order ih writing of the Collectorrto pay penalty not exceeding a sum calculated at double the market value of the minerals so extracted or removed and further that the Collector may confiscate any mineral extracted or removed from any mine or quarry the right to which veste in; and has not been assigned by the Government (12) Thus, on perusal of the above mentioned provisions contained under the Act and the Code it would be apparent that the Collector has the power to conttscate the mineral, impose penalty as also to confrscate the vehicle which has been used for transporting the illegally extracted mineral. Thusx the argument that the order is without jurisdiction is sans substance and is rejected. X (1 3) Learned counsel has argued that the petitioners were not noticed properly, however from the order passed by the Collector it is to be seen that the petitioner No.1 was absconding and the petitioners No. 2 & 3 appeared before the Collector and admitted the offence. When the petitioner No.2 who is the brother of the petitioner No.1 appeared before the Collector. it cannot be said that the petitioner No.1 had no knowledge of the proceedings and moreover a criminal‘case having also been registered against him and he was absconding, therefore plea regarding non service of notice is not tenable. Once petitioners No. 2 & 3 who were wk vg~ found to be actualiy involved in the transpmtatfon have admitted their guilt, the Coiiector as we" as the Commissioner rightiy held that principles. of natural justiCe have not been violated. (14) Even otherwise, the plea regarding absence of notice or prejudice can be examined and the matter can be remitted back if the petitioners furnishes any possrble or plausrble explanation regarding the source of mineral his right or authority to be in possession of the mineral and for its transportation, however the petitioner No.1 who complains of non—service of notice, has not submitted any doctiment in this writ petition by which it can be concluded that the Tin metal was possessed by petitioner No 1 or for that metal the other petitioners from any lawful source and it was transported in a lawful manner ln the absence of any such proof the order impugned cannot be set-aside on the ground of non—service of notice to petitioner No1 during the period when he was absconding. (15) ln View of the above there is no substance in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed l 3d,. 3’? K Prashant Kumar Mishra udge \;*