Ms Laxmi Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Pr Secretary Deptt Of Industries Mines And Geology

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Laxmi Enterprises, a proprietorship firm dealing in coal resale, participated in an e-auction conducted by Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) on April 22, 2020. After successful bidding, the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,27,77,400/- and received a Sale Order for coal. On May 1, 2020, two trucks belonging to the petitioner (JH-02V-9431 and JH-02AK-6930) were loaded with coal from Kedla OCP Colliery. CCL issued Tax Invoices and Transport Challans in Form-D as per the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The petitioner also generated a GST Invoice and E-Way Bill for the sale of this coal to M/s Laxmi Coal Dipo. Subsequently, the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, issued a letter dated May 5, 2020, informing the police that a fine had been imposed on ten vehicles, including the petitioner's two vehicles, under the 2017 Rules. The petitioner sought to quash this order and sought a refund of Rs. 2,31,102/-.

Held

The Court held that the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, had the jurisdiction to impose a fine under Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, by invoking Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The Court reasoned that Rule 13 of the 2017 Rules explicitly refers to the JMMC Rules, 2004, for punishment. It further clarified that the word 'अथवा' (or) in Rule 54(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, should be read as 'alternatively' in the context of the powers conferred upon the executive authority under Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules, allowing for the imposition of fines in lieu of criminal proceedings. The Court found that the executive authority, having the power of search and seizure under Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules, could exercise the powers under Rule 54(1) and 54(5) of the JMMC Rules, 2004, to impose penalties in terms of money. Therefore, the imposition of fine by the executive authority was considered valid. However, the Court did not delve into the factual aspects of the petitioner's compliance. Instead, it directed the petitioner to avail the appellate forum provided under Rule 14 of the 2017 Rules to present all facts for consideration. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within three months of its filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, had the jurisdiction to impose a fine under Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, by invoking Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, particularly when the petitioner had complied with the requirements of the 2017 Rules by obtaining necessary registration, sale order, tax invoices, and e-way bills? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they had complied with all the necessary provisions of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, including possessing valid registration, sale intimation letters, tax invoices, and e-way bills. They argued that the fine imposed by the District Mining Officer was illegal as the petitioner had followed the prescribed procedure for transportation of coal purchased through e-auction. They asserted that the action taken was beyond the authority of the District Mining Officer. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that Rule 13 of the 2017 Rules empowers the imposition of punishment as per the JMMC Rules, 2004. They relied on Rule 54 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, which provides for punishment in terms of money as an alternative to imprisonment. They contended that the executive authority, having been conferred power under Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules, could exercise the power to impose fines under the JMMC Rules, 2004, interpreting the word 'अथवा' (or) as 'alternatively'.