- (1.) Heard Mr. Hans Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State.
(2.) This petition is preferred for the following reliefs: "(i) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.2 to compound the offence of section 4(1A) of the Act, 1957 against the petitioner in persuant to the Seizure Memo dated 11.6.2014. (Annexure '1'). (ii) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to released sand lying over Gata No.92 duly seized by the authorities of the Respondent no.2 in accordance with rules within a period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited our attention to Section 4(1-A) and Section 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, [for short 'Act, 1957'] and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for release of the confiscated minerals (sand) on payment of royalty/penalty. In other words, he submits that under Section 23-A, compounding of an offence means that on payment of royalty/penalty, a person is entitled to a return of the confiscated minerals.;