Madras High Court Suggests Setting Up Of Special Courts To Deal With Cases Under Mines And Minerals Act

“It is not only the duty of the Government to bring the Act to curb the illegal mining and transportation and the Government is also duty bound to implement the provisions. Hence, for an effective implementation of the provisions of the Act, an earnest effort is required from all the stake holders to constitute special courts to deal with the cases filed under Mines and Minerals Act. Hence this court suggests the Government to set up special courts in all districts to deal with the cases filed under the Mines and Minerals Act,” the court said.

Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench made these observations after it was informed by the Director General of Police that from 2015 to May 2023, a total of 59,105 cases were registered under the Act and 63,542 vehicles that were involved in the transportation of illegal minerals had been seized. However, the court was informed that the confiscation proceedings were initiated against only 2,218 vehicles and completed only 385 cases. The court thus remarked that there was a requirement to complete the trial and confiscation proceedings in a timely manner.

For effective implementation of confiscation proceedings, the court directed the DGP to issue instructions to all investigating officers to file a petition to initiate confiscation proceedings of the seized vehicles in all pending cases within a period of 30 days from the date of the order and to further instruct the investigating officers to initiate confiscation proceedings in all future cases within 30 days of registration of the FIR.

The court also directed the Principal District and Sessions court to dispose of petitions for confiscation proceedings expeditiously and not later than six months from the date of the petition.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions by owners of vehicles involved in the offence of illegal quarrying challenging the order rejecting their plea for return of vehicles. The vehicles were seized in connection with the offence and were kept in police custody. When petitions were filed under Section 451 CrPC to return the vehicles, the pleas were rejected on the ground that the vehicles were involved in offences and in some cases involved repeatedly.

During revision, the vehicle owners argued that the cases were falsely registered and the vehicles were roped in without any transportation of illegally quarified sand. It was also submitted that the seized vehicles were kept idle in open spaces exposed to weather conditions which would diminish their value. The owners also undertook to obey any condition imposed by the court.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigating agencies were taking steps to initiate the confiscation proceedings and the vehicle owners should not be allowed to take advantage of absence of confiscation proceedings. He thus requested for dismissing the petitions.

The court observed that the power of confiscation proceeding was brought in by way of amendment to Section 21A of the Mines and Minerals Act was to make sure that the vehicle which was used for illegal transportation was no longer available for misuse and would also act as a deterrent for the offenders.

The court noted that even though stringent provisions were available and the High Court had also previously directed the Government to initiate confiscation proceedings, no progress had been made by the State for stopping illegal mining and transportation and none of the vehicles involved in illegal mining were being confiscated. Thus, the court observed that illegal mining was on the rise due to the lethargic attitude on the part of law enforcing agencies and non-implementation of the existing laws in letter and spirit.

“On analyzing the previous history from the data furnished by the Director General of Police, it appears that existing law has not been implemented by the authorities letter and spirit, which resulted in the above rampant increase of the case of illegal mining and transportation and damages to the environment,” the court observed.

Thus, for better implementation of the law, the court suggested setting up of special courts and making petitions for confiscation within 30 days of FIR.

In the present cases, since confiscation proceedings had not been initiated, the court noted that the petition under Section 452 CrPC for interim custody of the vehicle was maintainable and directed to release the vehicles upon conditions.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar, Mr.D.Venkatesh, Mrs.A.Banumathy, Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass, Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, Mr.N.Anandakumar, Ms.S.Prabha for Mr.D.Rameshkumar, Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, Mr.A.Ramesh, Mr.B.Muneeswaran, Mr.J.Madhu, Mr.R.J.Karthik, Mr.T.Selvakumaran, Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja, Mr.C.Ezhilarasu

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 339

Case Title: Ramar v State (and connected cases)

Case No: Crl.R.C(MD).No.470 of 2023