P. K. Jaiswal, J. - (1.)This order shall govern the disposal of R.P. No.597/2018, R.P. No.599/2018 and R.P. No.600/2018 also. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from R. P. No.595/2018.
(2.)The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.03.2018 passed in W. P. No.1313/2018 allowed the writ petition of the present petitioner and other three petitioners in part. Paras-19 to 21 of the order dated 08.03.2018 are relevant, which reads as under :-
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 compound the offence by imposition of penalty. The Writ Petition No.1313/2018 & connected procedure has been altered by subsequent amendment during the pendency of proceedings. The petitioners certainly have a right to dispose of their cases of un-authorized extraction and transportation of minerals by levy of penalty on the basis of rules inforce at the time of inspection made by the mining authorities, but they have no vested right to follow the procedure prescribed on that date on which inspection was made. Since, there is no such vested right, all pending cases of illegal extraction is to be disposed of as per procedure prescribed under the amended provisions of the law. The amendments, no doubt introduced certain additional conditions and power has been given to the Collector or any officer authorized by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector, which one intended for public good and due regulation of the mining activity in the light of vital concerns with regard to protection of illegal extraction and transportation of minerals.

20. In the present case, by amendment dated 18.5.2017, the power has also been delegated to the Sub Divisional Office to initiate proceeding under Rule 53 and impose fine / penalty under the aforesaid provision, but also enhance a penalty of minimum thirty to maximum seventy times of the royalty of illegal extracted / transported minerals whereas as per unamended provision the penalty was ten times of the market value of the mineral and thus, we are of the view that the amending provisions of Rule 53 would apply in the case in hand in the matter of procedural only because no person has a vested right in any course or procedure. He has only the right of defence in the manner prescribed for time being by or for the authority, which the case is pending and, if, by amendment the mode of procedural is altered, he has no other right then to proceeding according to the altered mode. A change of forum (from the court of Collector to Sub-Divisional Officer) is a Writ Petition No.1313/2018 & connected matter of procedure and, therefore, if an amended Rules requires or give authority to Sub-Divisional Officer instead of Collector, the said authority is competent to consider the question and decide it in accordance with law.

(3.)Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that it is true that no litigant has any vested right in the matter of procedural law but where the question is of change of forum, it ceases to be a question of procedure only. The forum of appeal or proceedings is a vested right and that vested right will be continued in respect of amendment made on 18.05.2017 under Rule 53 of the M. P. Minor and Mineral Rules, 1996 (in short "the Rules of 1996") and thus, this Court has wrongly directed that the question of imposition of penalty as per the rules which was prevailing on the date of joint inspection made by the joint inspect team and the same has to be dealt with under amended provisions of the Rules of 1996. He has also drawn our attention to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. Dhadi Sahu, (1994) Supp1 SCC 257, wherein it has been held as under :-
19. Section 274(2) as it stood prior to April 1, 1971 required the Income Tax Officer to refer the case to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if the minimum penalty impossible exceeded Rs. 1000. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on a reference made by the Income Tax Officer got jurisdiction to impose penalty in such cases. The jurisdiction on Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was conferred by virtue of the reference. The reference was validly made by the Income Tax Officer before April 1, 1971. The question is did the amendment to Section 274 divest the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of his validly acquired jurisdiction or the amendment ousted his jurisdiction merely because the amount of concealed income did not exceed Rs 25,000 and the case did not satisfy the requirement of Section 274(2) as amended.

20. It will be noticed that the amending Act did not make any provision that the references validly pending before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner shall be returned without passing any final order if the amount, of income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed did not exceed Rs. 25,000. This supports the inference that in pending references the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner continued to have jurisdiction to impose penalty. The previous operation of Section 274(2) as it stood before April 1, 1971, and anything done thereunder continued to have effect under Section 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, enabling the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to pass orders imposing penalty in pending references. In our opinion, therefore, what is material to be seen is as to when the references were initiated. If the reference was made before April 1, 1971, it would be governed by Section 274(2) as it stood before that date and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would have jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty.