Can police personnel be ‘authorised officer empowered’ under Mines and Minerals Act? HC refers matter to Full Bench
The Hindu
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?
The Opposition Congress demanded that the government open the Gandhi Vatika Museum, depicting Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy and freedom struggle, built at a cost of ₹85 crore in Jaipur’s Central Park last year, during the Congress-led regime in Rajasthan. The museum has not been opened to the public, reportedly because of the administration’s engagements with the State Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.
Almaya Munnettam (Lay People to the Fore), group in the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese of the Syro-Malabar Church opposed to the synod-recommended Mass, rejected a circular issued by Major Archbishop Raphael Thattil and apostolic administrator Bosco Puthur on June 9 to implement the unified Mass in the archdiocese from July 3.
Pakistan coach Gary Kirsten stated that “not so great decision making” contributed to his side’s defeat to India in the Group-A T20 World Cup clash here on Sunday. The batting unit came apart in the chase, after being well placed at 72 for two. With 48 runs needed from eight overs, Pakistan found a way to panic and lose. “Maybe not so great decision making,” Kirsten said at the post-match press conference, when asked to explain the loss.