While emphasising that the mischief sought to be suppressed by Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act is to prevent the user of vehicles from transporting a mineral, without any lawful authority, the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) held that the process of transportation begins by unlawfully loading the mineral into the vehicle, and such acts attracts seizure by the concerned authority.

The Court clarified that the actual movement of the vehicle is not a sine qua non to constitute ‘transport’, and the process of transport or transportation commences with the loading of the mineral into the vehicle, to carry it from one place to another.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the loading of the vehicle with the mineral for transportation would make a sea change to the scenario, wherein the wrongdoer has gone an extra mile from that of a mere intention to transport the mineral.

The Single Judge noted that the existence of the subject vehicle in a crusher unit, not belonging to the owner of the vehicle, is established, and the fact that the vehicle was loaded with a mineral has to be prima facie taken to be true, going by the Mahazar prepared by none other than the Geologist herself.

Thus, there is no material on record to indicate that the movement of the mineral was not enabled by any transit pass or movement permit, and in such a fact situation, it cannot be concluded straight away that Section 21(4) is not attracted, added the Bench.

The Bench also referred to Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), to analyse the scope of the expression ‘transport’, and pointed out that this provision enables seizure of any equipment, vehicle or mineral, which has been raised or transported without any lawful authority, with the caveat that the focus is on seizure; and not on punishing the wrongdoer.

Briefly, the petitioner’s goods carriage vehicle was seized by the officers of the Geologist, alleging transportation of illegal minerals. This was opposed by the petitioners, contending that what was seized was an empty vehicle from the premises of one ‘Deepam Granite Industries’, Kurrupampady, from where the petitioner was returning with an empty vehicle, upon being informed that the said Granite Industries has no valid GST registration. Hence, the petitioner has sought the release of the goods carriage vehicle.

Appearances:

Advocate Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, for the Petitioner

Advocates Ajith Viswanathan, for the Respondent