Mines Act | Loading Mineral Initiates “Transportation”, Actual Movement Of Vehicle Not Necessary To Effect Seizure: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that actual movement of a vehicle is not necessary to constitute “transport” of minerals under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Court ruled that the very act of loading minerals into a vehicle marks the commencement of transportation, thereby attracting the provision permitting seizure.Justice C...
The Kerala High Court has held that actual movement of a vehicle is not necessary to constitute “transport” of minerals under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The Court ruled that the very act of loading minerals into a vehicle marks the commencement of transportation, thereby attracting the provision permitting seizure.
Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment while dismissing the petition filed by a goods-carriage owner whose vehicle had been seized by the District Geologist for alleged illegal transport of granite.
The petitioner argued that the vehicle was empty at the time of seizure and it was not seized during the course of movement. Relying on the division bench judgment in District Collector v. Unais (WA 609/ 2023), it was contended that mere intention to transport does not amount to “transport” under Section 21(4).
The Government pleader disputed the factual premise by producing a mahazar indicating that the vehicle was loaded with mineral at the time of seizure, which was subsequently unloaded at the quarry. The Petitioner has disputed this fact, but the Court noted that it cannot go into the facts in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It was also pointed out by the Government Pleader that no enabling transit pass was produced by the driver of the petitioner, when the vehicle was seized, which indicated that the transportation was without any lawful authority.
The Court observed that Section 21(4) enables the seizure of any tool, equipment, vehicle or other thing, which may also include minerals, which has been raised or transported without any lawful authority.
It further examined the definition of 'transport' under different dictionaries and observed that the term must be interpreted in the light of the purpose for which Section 21 (4) has been engrafted in the statute and observed that the term meant carrying mineral from one place to another.
The Court thus noted that transportation commences with the loading of the mineral into the vehicle in order to carry it from one place to another.
“The movement of the vehicle, by itself, is of no moment, unless the vehicle is loaded with mineral. Therefore, the focus cannot be on movement alone, but should be to find out whether the process of transportation had commenced or not. The first step to transport a mineral from one place to another is to load the mineral into the vehicle, in which it is proposed to be transported. The above interpretation is in sync with the rule of purposive interpretation, as also, the mischief rule.” the Court noted.
The Court noted that dictum laid in Unais is not applicable in the present instance as Unais dealt exclusively with vehicles that were empty at the time of seizure which was in contrast to the present case where the vehicle was already loaded with minerals.
The Court thus dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate, on the factual contention raised by the Petitioner as the Geologist had already reported the matter to the Magistrate.
Case Title: Pranav Mohanan v The District Geologist and Anr
Case No: WP(C) 37796/ 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 771
Counsel for Petitioner: Sajeec Kumar K Gopal
Counsel for Respondents: Ajith Viswanahtan (GP)
Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment