GURVINDER SINGH GILL,J. - (1.) Both the above-mentioned petitions are being taken up together, being identical on facts, wherein common questions of law are being raised.
(2.) For the sake of brevity, facts of only one of these cases are being noticed i.e. of M/s. KC Stone Crushing Company's case, which may be stated chronologically as follows: 1.3.2020: A truck bearing registration no. HR-55-R-8854 was intercepted by Mining Officer in the area of Gurugram, while the same was carrying "Rori"(tiny pieces of stones or gravel). Since the driver could not produce any document justifying possession and transportation of the aforesaid mineral, the truck in question was seized by the Mining Officer, vide order dated 1.3.2020(Annexure P-6) in terms of provisions of Rule 104 of The Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules 2012 (hereinafter called as the Mining Rules 2012). The petitioner was asked to pay an amount equal to 50% of the showroom value of the truck in question for its release in accordance with order dated 5.4.2019 passed in OA No. 360/2015 by National Green Tribunal, New Delhi(hereinafter refered to as NGT). 11.5.2020: The petitioner, instead of paying the penalty as imposed, approached this Court by way of filing CRM-M-12123-2020 wherein it was inter-alia contended that he cannot be made to pay an amount to the tune of 50% of the value of the truck as the National Green Tribunal, vide order dated 19.2.2020 had revised the said rates which would be applicable to the case of the petitioner since his truck was seized after 19.2.2020. This Court, vide order dated 11.5.2020 (Annexure P-8), disposed of the petition while directing the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana to look into the matter and to dispose of a representation moved by the petitioner within 10 days. 9.6.2020: The representation moved by the petitioner was decided by the Director vide order dated 9.6.2020(Annexure P-10). During the course of said proceedings the petitioner hadproduced a Transit Pass i.e. ‘e-Ravaana’ dated 1.3.2020 pertaining to transportation of 17 M.T. of "Rori". However since the truck in question was found to be carrying 23 M.T. of "Rori" as against the bill of 17 M.T., the Director held that transporting excess "Rori" would amount to illegal transportation of the excess mineral and thus the truck, in any case, was liable to be seized. The Director, however ordered that the truck could be got released by paying the penalty under the 2012 Mining Rules 2012 and the compensation amount as per the latest order dated 19.2.2020 passed by NGT. 24.7.2020: The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 9.6.2020 before Appellate Authority but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2020(Annexure P-1), which has been challenged by way of filing instant petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has broadly made the following submissions: (i) that infact it is not a case of illegal mining as the transit-pass i.e. 'eRavaana' was produced before the authorities by the owner subsequently which is not disputed. It has been submitted that the respondent authorities upon being shown the 'e-ravaana' have later built up a new case of excess loading of mineral though there was no such mention in the Seizure Order dated 1.3.2020(Annexure P-6); (ii) that the amount sought to be realised as penalty from the petitioner is extremely on the higher side which the petitioner is unable to pay and that he can not be forced to compound the matter so as to deprive him an opportunity to contest the allegations as he does have a very good case; (iii) that the act of the respondents in neither releasing the truck in question despite a period of more than 9 months having elapsed nor even lodging any FIR and keeping the matter in limbo is high-handedness on part of the authorities as the truck in question is deteriorating due to its disuse and vagaries of weather. It has been submitted that had the authorities lodged FIR, the petitioner could not only have contested the allegations but could also have moved an application for release of the truck on 'superdari' which he can not move now as the Court is not seized of the matter, the FIR/complaint not having filed; (iv) that retention of the truck by the authorities for an indefinite period virtually amounts to confiscation which the authorities concerned are not competent to do as it is only under the orders of the Court that a vehicle may be confiscated in terms of provisions of section 21(4-A) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMDR Act). ;