'Respect Legal Rights, Consider Potential Humanitarian Consequences': Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Guidelines To Mining Officers Seizing Vehicles

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued nine set of guidelines for mining officers to ensure transparency and adherence to legal procedure while seizing vehicles.

Justice Arun Monga said, "These guidelines are aimed to ensure transparency, fairness and adherence to legal procedures in mining-related penalty imposition and vehicle seizures, while also taking into consideration the humanitarian aspects and the livelihood of the affected individuals and families."

The Guideline framed by the Court are as follows:

I. Fair and Transparent Inspection Process:

a. Ensure that inspections and checks conducted by mining officers are fair, transparent, and well-documented.

b. Conduct surprise checks in accordance with established procedures and rules.

c. Clearly state the specific violations alleged, including the specific reasons to show such violations.

II. Proper Documentation:

a. Document all findings during inspections, including the condition of the vehicle, the quantity of minerals being transported, and the violations observed.

b. Provide a written report of the inspection findings to the vehicle owner or its driver as the case may be, specifying the alleged violations and also explain the same , in a language they understand.

III. Respect Legal Rights:

a. Respect the legal rights of vehicle owners and operators, including the right to due process and a fair hearing. 

b. Ensure that vehicle owners are informed of their rights and the steps they can take

to contest any actions taken against them

IV. Handling of Overload Violations:

a. In cases of alleged overload violations, ensure that the evidence is properly collected and recorded.

b. Clearly specify the alleged overloaded quantity of the mining material and provide evidence to support the claim.

c. Follow established penalty guidelines for overload violations, as per relevan mining rules and regulations. and specify the quantum of the likely penalty and the mode of calculations.

V. Appellate Process:

a. Inform vehicle owners of their right to appeal any seizure or penalty imposed.

b. Provide clear guidance on the appellate process, including where and how to file an appeal. Ensure timely processing of appeals to prevent unnecessary delays.

c. Ensure timely processing of appeals to prevent unnecessary delays.

VI. Humanitarian Considerations:

a. Take into account the potential humanitarian consequences of vehicle seizures

b. Consider the livelihood of the vehicle owner and their family, especially it the vehicle is their primary source of income.

c. Endeavor to expedite the release of seized vehicles when appropriate

VII. Communication and Responsiveness:

a. Maintain open communication with vehicle owners and their legal representatives

b. Respond promptly to any written appeals or representations submitted by vehicle owners.

c. Ensure that the appellate authority reviews and addresses appeals

VIII. Determination of Tentative Penalty in the Challan Seizure Memo:

a. The mining officer should calculate and determine a tentative penalty payable by the offender in the seizure memo/challan.

b. The mining officer should also apprise the offender of his right to contest the penalty so determined.

c. This enables the offender to make an informed choice/decision regarding payment to avoid vehicle seizure or contest it after the vehicle's seizure

IX. Duty of the Mining Officer to Seek Court Order for Confiscation of Vehicle Upon Failure to Pay Penalty:

a. If there is no FlR or complaint before a competent court, and the penalty is not paid within 30 days of vehicle seizure, the mining officer shall promptly, but no later than next 7 days move an application to the competent court for confiscation of the vehicle

b. If no such application is moved, written reasons for not doing so must be recorded in the file.

The Court was hearing the plea against seizure of a vehicle in October, 2022 by mining officer on allegations of loading 35 metric tons of stone and mineral material without permit and transit pass was not displayed on the vehicle.

The counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the vehicle is the only source of his income for the survival of the family. If the vehicle is not released, the petitioner and his family will face severe financial hardship and potential hunger.

Perusing the seizure memo, the Court questioned the alleged violation. "...memo clearly states that no FIR has been filed in the case. The vehicle was intercepted during a road check, but there is no allegation of any evidence of it being overloaded.  Memo states quantity loaded is 35 MT, whereas as per transit permit... issued to petitioner by Department of Mines, Govt. of Rajasthan, permitted quantity is 38.02 Metric Ton. Then where is the violation ? Memo is silent about it," added the Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner "completely hapless and helpless" approached SDM and SDJM but his plea was dismissed since "there was neither an FIR registered against the petitioner nor was any application filed by the mining department before the Court for confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle, therefore, sapurdari application was not maintainable."

Adding that appeal was filed sometime in November-December 2022, and it has been 10 months since then, with no orders passed, the Court said that, "It is parked unattended in the open space at Police Station Ferozpur Jhirka. On the other hand, the petitioner and his family members are living in sheer penury and dying of hunger/malnutrition. Said vehicle is stated to be the only source of livelihood."

The Court said that it is unfathomable, as to how, while keeping the vehicle seized, the appellate authority is sitting over the appeal, in which, in the worst case scenario, all that is envisaged is a fine of not less than Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 15,000/- or Rs.25,000/.

"Yet, on the other hand, the petitioner has been driven to the wall and made to suffer for almost one year, being deprived of his livelihood due to the seizure of his vehicle and subsequent high headedness of the officials of the department," the bench observed.

Calling it "frivolous argument", the Court also rejected the contention of state that it did not receive the representation. 

The Court further said that it was inclined to impose a cost of Rs.1 lakh on the State for its inaction but in the oral request of State counsel, it took a lenient view.

While noting that none of the guideline framed by the Court was complied with, the Court directed to release the vehicle to its registered owner on superdari on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate on usual terms and conditions.

The Court also directed to the Director of the Mining, Haryana to circulate copy of the order to all the mining officers in the State and also sensitize them about the guidelines.

Appearance: Arun Avasthy, Advocate for petitioner.

Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 196