‘Surprising’: Top court on MP govt supporting illegal miners who paid fine

The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Centre and states to undertake a stern strategy towards unlawful mining, because it referred to as the Madhya Pradesh authorities supporting the competition of some violators “very surprising”. The apex courtroom took umbrage that the MP authorities needed the violators to not face felony prosecutions solely as a result of that they had paid financial fines.

“We are of the opinion that the violators cannot be permitted to go scot free on payment of penalty only. There must be some stringent provisions which may have deterrent effect so that the violators may think twice before committing such offences and before causing damage to the earth and nature,” stated a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Authoring the judgment, Justice MR Shah reminded the State that they’re the custodian of mines and minerals within the nation, and stated they need to be extra delicate in the direction of defending the ecological stability by guaranteeing stern motion towards the violators.

It identified that though provisions within the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) empowered the state to withdraw prosecution for unlawful mining after imposing fines, they’d do properly to acknowledge the rising concern relating to environmental damages and its grave penalties.

The observations got here as the highest courtroom dismissed a clutch of appeals for quashing as many as 14 FIRs registered in Madhya Pradesh’s Mandsaur district towards unlawful sand mining and their transportation. While the FIR was lodged on a directive from the judicial Justice of the Peace involved, the violators proceeded to settle the fees beneath the MMDR Act by paying financial fines. These petitions have been dismissed by the excessive courtroom.

The state authorities, which had initially supported the Justice of the Peace’s order on FIRs, took a U-turn earlier than the Supreme Court and stated the prosecution beneath the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for theft and abetting concealment of stolen properties can not go on after these violators have already settled the case by coughing up fines.

The bench referred to as the state authorities’s assist to the “violators” “very surprising”, and held that the felony prosecution beneath the IPC is impartial of the settlement proceedings beneath the MMDR Act.

The courtroom stated that even when a state authorities decides to withdraw circumstances beneath the MMDR Act, investigation beneath the IPC shall go on in accordance with the legislation.

The bench, due to this fact, allowed quashing of the fees beneath Section 23A of the MMDR Act however clarified the prosecution for theft and so forth will proceed in all of the 14 FIRs.