2018 (3) TMI 1643 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Ratlam to impose Penalty under sub-rule (5) of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 read with Section 247(7) of MPLR Code, 1959. Held that - From the un-amended Rule 53(1) and sub-rule (5) of the Rules, 1996, the authority to impose fine is Collector and not SDO. As per show cause notice, the details of the place from where the mineral was extracted, the quantity extracted, the market price of the mineral extracted were given and joint panchnama was also prepared to show that it was extracted without lawful authority. Under sub-section (7) of Section 247, the maximum penalty is four times, the market value of the mineral so extracted. Under the unamended provision of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (5) of the Rule 53 of Rules of 1996, the Collector is empowered to compound the offence by imposing the penalty upon ten times of the value of the mineral, but it nowhere provide for imposition of the fine as was imposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) by the impugned order. Only on filing the application or approaching to the Collector to compound the matter, the Collector could have exercised such power. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner herein had not moved to the Collector for compounding the matter, so the SDO was not empowered to invoke the power under sub-Rule (5) of Rule 53. So far as, the stand of the State Government that after amendment in Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, the SDO is empowered to impose the fine against the petitioner. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. There is a presumption of prospectivity articulated in the legal maxim nova constitutio futuris forman imponere debet non praeteritis , i.e. a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past , and this presumption operates unless shown to the contrary by express provision in the statute or is otherwise discernible by necessary implication. It is also well settled that if the new Act affect the matters of procedure only then, prima facie, it applies to all the actions pending as well as future. The Rules of 1996 prescribed particular procedure to compound the offence by imposition of penalty. The procedure has been altered by subsequent amendment during the pendency of proceedings. The petitioners certainly have a right to dispose of their cases of un-authorized extraction and transportation of minerals by levy of penalty on the basis of rules inforce at the time of inspection made by the mining authorities, but they have no vested right to follow the procedure prescribed on that date on which inspection was made. Since, there is no such vested right, all pending cases of illegal extraction is to be disposed of as per procedure prescribed under the amended provisions of the law. The Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to pass the impugned order, but he has acted illegally and the penalty has been imposed on the basis of amended Rule 53 of Rules of 1996, treated it to have retrospective operation - matter remitted back to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer to reconsider the same and decide the question of imposition of penalty as per the Rules. Petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to impose penalty under Rule 53(5) of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996.
2. Retrospective application of amended Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996.
3. Validity of the penalty imposed by the SDO under the amended rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to impose penalty under Rule 53(5) of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.10.2017 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ratlam, arguing that the SDO lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty under Rule 53(5) of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996. The petitioner contended that the penalty could only be imposed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 by a Magistrate, not the SDO. However, the respondents argued that amendments effective from 18.5.2017 empowered the SDO to impose penalties. The court noted that the amended rules did authorize the SDO to impose penalties but clarified that such authority was procedural and did not extend to imposing fines as done in the impugned order.

2. Retrospective application of amended Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996:
The court emphasized the principle that statutes are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. The amendments to Rule 53, effective from 18.5.2017, did not have retrospective application. The court cited precedents, including M/s. Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad v. Director of Enforcement and Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, to support the principle that procedural amendments can apply retrospectively, but substantive changes cannot. The court concluded that the SDO's imposition of penalties based on the amended rules was incorrect as the amendments were not intended to apply retrospectively.

3. Validity of the penalty imposed by the SDO under the amended rules:
The court examined the procedural and substantive aspects of Rule 53 before and after the amendments. It noted that the SDO's authority to impose penalties was procedural and could apply to ongoing cases. However, the specific penalty imposed by the SDO, based on the amended rules, was not valid as the amendments were not retrospective. The court directed the SDO to reconsider the penalty based on the rules in force at the time of the inspection and joint demarcation conducted in August 2016. The SDO was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing and decide the matter within sixty days.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions in part, quashing the penalty imposed by the SDO under the amended rules. It remitted the matter back to the SDO to reconsider the penalty based on the rules prevailing at the time of the inspection, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to the law. The decision emphasized the non-retrospective application of substantive legal amendments and upheld the principle of jurisdictional authority in imposing penalties.