Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010.
  • Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010.
  • Section 451 of Cr.P.C.
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This application seeks modification of the order dated 05.04.2019 read with the order dated 26.07.2019, which laid down terms for the release of vehicles and other equipment involved in illegal mining. The original orders were passed by this Tribunal under Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010, after reviewing earlier orders of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal had found that the steps taken by States to check illegal mining were inadequate and directed States to apply the polluter pays principle, requiring illegal miners to pay compensation covering the value of the illegally mined material, environmental restoration costs, and ecological service losses. It was also directed that vehicles or equipment used for illegal mining be confiscated and released only on payment of at least 50% of their showroom value, as earlier established in Original Application No. 110(THC)/2012, South Garo Hills District v. State of Meghalaya, affirmed by the Supreme Court in (2019) 8 SCC 177.

The Tribunal referred to the special legal position that the terms for release of vehicles involved in violations of special laws are not governed by the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. It cited prior orders, including O.A. No. 840/2019 (Atul Singh Chouhan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh), and Supreme Court rulings such as in Cr.A. 524/2019 (State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh), which held that the special procedure for confiscation prevails over Section 451 of Cr.P.C., following the principle laid down in Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129. Despite this settled legal position, the Tribunal noted that some courts had taken a different view by releasing vehicles on superdari without conditions, which it found untenable.

The State raised practical difficulties concerning storage space for seized vehicles and the high compensation amounts required for release, which could deter vehicle owners from reclaiming their vehicles. The Tribunal acknowledged these concerns and accordingly modified the earlier orders.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the terms for release of vehicles and equipment involved in illegal mining should be modified from the previously fixed compensation regime.
  2. Whether the special legal procedure for confiscation and release under environmental law overrides the general provisions of the Cr.P.C.
  3. How to balance enforcement of environmental protection with practical difficulties faced by States and vehicle owners in implementing confiscation and compensation orders.

Arguments of the Parties

State's Arguments

  • Police stations are facing difficulty in providing adequate custody space for the large number of seized vehicles (669 vehicles already seized and more expected).
  • The high scale of compensation (50% of showroom value, e.g., Rs. 15 lacs for a Rs. 30 lac truck) is impractical and may discourage vehicle owners from reclaiming their vehicles, especially for vehicles of lesser value.

Tribunal's Observations

  • The scale of illegal sand mining and use of vehicles for such purposes is extensive, warranting a stern approach.
  • Vehicles can be stored by the State at any appropriate place, and the cost of storage can be recovered from violators.
  • The State must take necessary steps to enforce the rule of law and protect the environment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
South Garo Hills District v. State of Meghalaya (2019) 8 SCC 177 Affirmed the Tribunal's order that vehicles/equipment used in illegal mining are to be confiscated and released only on payment of at least 50% of showroom value. Used as authoritative basis for the original compensation and confiscation regime.
Atul Singh Chouhan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (O.A. No. 840/2019) Confirmed the special procedure for confiscation and release under environmental law. Referred to support the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and approach; upheld by Supreme Court dismissal of challenge.
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh Cr.A. 524/2019 Held that special confiscation procedure prevails over Section 451 Cr.P.C. Applied to reinforce that general Cr.P.C. provisions do not control release conditions in environmental violations.
Sujit Kumar Rana (2004) 4 SCC 129 Established principle that special laws and procedures override general criminal procedure provisions. Followed by the Supreme Court in State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh to uphold special confiscation regime.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal analyzed the existing orders and Supreme Court rulings which established the special procedure for confiscation and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining, emphasizing that these procedures override general criminal procedure provisions. Recognizing the practical difficulties faced by States in storing seized vehicles and the deterrent effect of the high compensation amounts, the Tribunal found it necessary to modify the earlier orders to balance enforcement with feasibility.

The Tribunal retained the principle that illegal mining must be deterred through adequate compensation covering environmental restoration and ecological loss, but adjusted the penalty amounts based on vehicle age and value categories to make compliance more practical. It also emphasized that the State’s sovereign power to protect the environment is paramount and cannot be undermined by private contractual interests, with any collected compensation to be used for environmental restoration.

Holding and Implications

The application is disposed of.

The Tribunal modified its earlier orders dated 05.04.2019 and 26.07.2019 by prescribing a tiered penalty structure for release of vehicles and equipment involved in illegal mining, reducing the penalty amounts to address practical difficulties while maintaining deterrence. The State is directed to issue appropriate rules/orders and publish them. The lien of the State in environmental enforcement overrides private interests, and collected amounts are to be used for environmental restoration. This decision directly affects the parties by easing the compensation burden for vehicle release without altering the fundamental legal principles or setting a new precedent.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Mushtakeem v. Moef & Cc

    1. This application seeks modification of order dated 05.04.2019 read with order dated 26.07.2019 laying down terms on which vehicles or other equipments involved in illegal mining may be released passed by this Tribunal. After referring to the earlier orders on the subject passed by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to therein, and perusing the reports received from different States, this Tribunal found that steps taken by the States to check illegal mining were not adequate. The Tribunal inter alia directed the States to ensure that in compliance of polluter pays principle, the illegal miners may be required to be pay compensation which should include not only the value of illegal mined material but also cost of restoration of environment as well as cost of ecological services foregone forever. It should be deterrent so as not to render such illegal activity profitable. It was further directed that the vehicles or any other equipments used for illegal mining are required to be confiscated and to be released only on payment of atleast 50% of the showroom value as laid down by this Tribunal earlier in Original Application No. 110(THC)/2012, Threat to life arising out of coal mining in South Garo Hills District v. State of Meghalaya, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 8 SCC 177.

    2. The above order was passed by this Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010. It is well settled that terms for release of vehicles and equipments involved in violation of special law is not control by the general provisions of the Cr.P.C. In this connection reference may also be made to another order of this Tribunal on the same subject in O.A. No. 840/2019, Atul Singh Chouhan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh of U.P.. The said order was challenged by the State of U.P. in C.A. 1590/2019 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.05.2019. The Tribunal also referred to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.03.2019 in Cr.A. 524/2019, State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh . that special procedure for confiscation prevailed over procedure under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. In the said case principle laid in Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129 was followed.

    3. In spite of above legal position, any other view on the subject will be against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The plea that different Courts are taking different interpretation and releasing vehicles on superdari without any conditions is untenable. Legal position need to be brought to the notice of such courts where matters are taken up.

    4. Other difficulty pointed out by the State is that police stations are finding it difficult to provide sufficient space for custody of the vehicles. 669 vehicles have already been seized and more may be seized. The stand of the State itself supports the allegation that illegal sand mining and illegal use of vehicles for the purpose is taking place at large scale which itself may require a stern approach in the matter. The vehicles can be stored by the State at any appropriate place and cost recovered from the law violators. The State has to take necessary steps for enforcing rule of law and for protection of environment. As regards the difficulty that with the scale of compensation laid down by this Tribunal, the vehicle owners do not find it profitable to come forward and take the vehicles unless the scale of compensation is reduced. The showroom value of a truck is said to be around Rs. 30 lacs and 50% thereof comes to Rs. 15 lacs. In terms of order of this Tribunal, if amount of Rs. 15 lacs is to be deposited for release of every seized vehicle, there may be many vehicles which may be of much lesser value, in which case nobody may come forward to take such vehicles.

    5. Having regard to the above practical difficulty, we modify the orders dated 05.04.2019 and 26.07.2019 as follows:

    Sr. No. Category of Vehicle Penalty Amount 1 Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators with showroom value more than Rs. 25 lacs and less than 5 years old. Rs. 4 lacs 2 Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators with showroom value more than Rs. 25 lacs and more than 5 years but less than 10 years old. Rs. 3 lacs 3 For the remaining Vehicles older than 10 years/Equipments/Excavators which are otherwise legally permissible to be operated and not covered by Serial No. 1 and 2. Rs. 2 lacs Note — I: On repetition of the offence by the same vehicle/equipment, Order dated 05.04.2019 will be applicable. Note — II: The option of release may be available for a period of one month from the date of seizure and thereafter, the vehicles may be confiscated and auctioned.

    6. The State may issue an appropriate Office Order/Rule to the above effect and publish the same. Needless to say that any private contract between a financer and a debtor cannot affect the States' sovereign power to protect the environment and take incidental coercive measure for enforcement of rule of law. Lien of the State will override any private interest. The above compensation regime will be over and above any existing Rules or provisions. The amount collected may be remitted to the State PCBs/PCCs for being utilized for restoration of the environment.

    7. The above course of action will be permissible to all the States at their option.

    A copy of this order be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs, PCBs/PCCs, CPCB and MoEF&CC.

    The application is disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Mushtakeem v. Moef & Cc
    (Feb 19, 2020)