Can police personnel be ‘authorised officer empowered’ under Mines and Minerals Act? HC refers matter to Full Bench

MADURAI

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has referred the issue of whether police personnel could be brought under the ambit of ‘authorised officer empowered’ under Sections 21(4), 22 and 23-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, to a larger Bench.

A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Anand Venkatesh, while hearing a petition seeking the release of vehicles engaged in illegal quarrying, referred a set of questions to the Full Bench to decide. The petition had sought the release of vehicles that were seized following a stone quarry accident in Tirunelveli district, in which four workers were killed and two sustained injuries after a giant boulder rolled down the quarry pit.

The judges observed that there was an apparent conflict between the directions issued by the court, recognising only a revenue official as the authorised officer, and the Government Order, which recognises even a police official as the authorised officer, apart from a revenue official.

Some of the questions that came up were: If the police officer cannot be brought within the fold of an authorised officer, and hence, he does not have the power to seize the vehicles/materials, what will be the effect of such seizure that had taken place after the G.O. was issued?

Whether the police officer, who also happens to be the authorised officer and registers an FIR for an IPC offence and an offence under the Act, can partly compound the offence under the Act and proceed further only for the IPC offence with respect to the very same transaction?

Can the authorised officer, who seizes the vehicle under Section 21(4) of the Act alone, initiate a private complaint under Section 22 of the Act, or should a different officer be appointed for initiation of criminal proceedings under the Act? In other words, should the officer who seizes the vehicle and the officer who initiates the private complaint be the same?

If the Special Court alone is entitled to try offences under the Act, can the power of compounding be given to an authorised officer, or should such power only be exercised by the Special Court?