Deputy Commissioner Lacks Power To Initiate Confiscation Proceeding: Jharkhand High Court Declares Rule 11(V) Ultra Vires To Mines & Minerals Act

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Deputy Commissioners in each district lack the authority to initiate and decide confiscation proceedings under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017.

This decision, made by a division bench comprising Justice Anand Sen and Justice Subhash Chand, deems Rule 11(V) of the Jharkhand Mineral Rules, 2017, as ultra vires to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (parent Act).

The Court emphasized that only the “court taking cognizance” serves as the confiscating authority under the Act and the Rules, rendering any such powers vested in Deputy Commissioners as conflicting with the parent Act.

The division bench stated, “It is only the “court taking cognizance”, who is the “confiscating authority” under the Act and the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner of each District has got no power to initiate and decide a confiscation proceeding, as the same is in conflict with the parent Act, thus, Rule 11(V) is ultra vires to the parent Act.”

““Confiscation” under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 are same and cannot be differentiated. “Confiscation” prescribed under the Rules cannot be read independently and the Rules does not give any independent power to any authority to confiscate,” the Court added.

The court said that the authority, to seize the minerals and other materials, tools including vehicles, is the authority prescribed under Rule 11(1) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

This ruling was issued in response to a series of writ petitions filed by Aditya Enterprises and others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought to declare Rule 11(i) in conjunction with Rule 11(iv) and Rule 12 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2017, as ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, to the extent that it provides for the seizure of mineral tools, equipment, and vehicles.

Additionally, the petitioners requested that Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2017, which allows for the confiscation of mineral tools, equipment, and vehicles by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, be declared ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

The petitioners further sought a declaration from the court stating that the Deputy Commissioner of any district does not have the authority to confiscate minerals, tools, equipment, and vehicles under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2017.

Advocate Inderjeet Sinha, representing the applicants, argued before the court that the District Mining Officer (DMO) takes action and files an FIR against vehicles loaded with illegal minerals if there is no challan, no permit, or overloading. The concerned Deputy Commissioner then declares these vehicles as government property, a practice which the advocate argued is unconstitutional.

The Court, in its judgment, observed that there are two authorities prescribed as the Confiscating Authority: one under the parent Act and one under the Rules. The Court held that the power to search, seize, and confiscate under the Act and the Rules are not different but the same, with the Rules deriving power from the parent Act.

"The parent Act does not confer the State to promulgate a Rule and empower a different authority than prescribed under the Act to be the Confiscating Authority. When under the Act the authority to confiscate is specified and is identifiable (as the Court taking cognizance), the Rules giving power to the Deputy Commissioner is nothing but an excessive delegation," the Court said.

Furthermore, the Court stated that this point is reinforced by the fact that Section 21(3) of the Act does not specify who would be the "authorised authority" or the "authority authorised" to inspect and seize. The Court noted that when the authority is not specified, it is within the ambit of delegated legislation to name and prescribe the authorised authority, which has been done in the Rules under Rule 11(i).

"but so far as the Confiscating Authority is concerned, Act specifies the same to be the Court taking cognizance, thus, the State legislature is denuded of its power to nominate the Deputy Commissioner of each district to be the confiscating authority," the Court said.

The Court further said, "Similarly, the authority to seize has also not been prescribed under the Act. Thus, the Officer nominated under Rule 11(1) of the Rules is empowered to search and seize tools, equipment, and vehicles, but the confiscation proceeding is to be initiated and concluded by the Court, which is empowered to take cognizance, i.e., the Special Court or the Judicial Magistrate First Class as provided in the parent Act."

The Court added, "As we have already declared Rule 11(v) as ultra vires, any confiscation proceeding by the Deputy Commissioner of any district within the State of Jharkhand under the Rules is illegal and is without any authority of law and is beyond jurisdiction. Similarly, in these cases, initiation of proceeding … is hereby held to be without any authority of law and is accordingly quashed and set aside, with the liberty to proceed for confiscation before the Court having power to take cognizance of the offence," while allowing all the writ petitions.

Case title: M/s Aditya Enterprises and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 129

Click Here To Read Judgement