Oral Order

1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, whereby the ATR account of the petitioner has been locked.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that show cause notice dated 16.01.2020 came to be issued to the petitioner by the Collector, Porbandar under Rule 22 read with Schedule 3(C) of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, thereafter two more notices came to be issued to the petitioner.

          3.1 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that thereafter by the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, the ATR of the petitioner has been locked. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order, the assessment of penalty has not been done. He submits that in view thereof, the impugned order which has been purportedly passed under Rule 5 (4) of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, is bad in law, inasmuch as the impugned order is not in conformity with the same. Learned advocate submits that the proviso to Section 5(4) of the Rules, 2017 provides for two eventualities (i) that there has to be an order passed by the authorized officer levying penalty upon the person whose ATR account has been suspended and (ii) such dues and penalty which are levied, are outstanding.

          3.2 Learned Advocate further submits that in the present case while the ATR account of the petitioner has been locked, neither assessment of any penalty has been done nor any penalty have been levied. He therefore, submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mayank Chavda appearing for the respondents authorities submitted that the petitioner has been duly heard before passing such an order. He submits that under Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, it is found that the petitioner was indulging in illegal mining beyond the area of the lease. He submits that in view thereof, the impugned order has been passed closing the ATR account of the petitioner. He further submits that the issue of levying penalty on the petitioner is still pending adjudication. He therefore, submits that the impugned order is in accordance with the rules and the present writ petition be dismissed.

5. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

6. Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 reads thus :-

          "5(4) The Authorized Officer shall issue a special security permit paper-sheet which shall be used by the holder of a mineral concession or a trader, to print the Transit Permit or the Delivery Challan, as the case may be. The special security permit paper- sheet shall be issued in such manner as may be specified by the Government. The Transit Permit or Delivery Challan shall be in triplicate and machine numbered with the book number and serial number thereof.

          [Provided that Government may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend issuance of transit permit as contemplated under sub-rule (2) above or delivery challan as contemplated under sub-rule (3) above, to the holder or a mineral concession or to a trader, as the case may be, in case (a) any dues or penalties have been levied by the Authorised Officer on such holder or trader and are outstanding; or (b) the trader or the owner of the relevant carrier has not procured registration for storage or transportation of mineral, as the case may be.]"

7. A plain reading of the said rule along with the proviso thereto shows that the authorized officer has a power to suspend the issuance of transit permit or ATR for the reasons to be recorded in writing. However, the proviso to the said Rule 5(4) further states that same can be done only in case of any dues or penalty having been levied by the authorized officer or the trader or the owner has not procured registration for storage and transportation of the mineral as the case may be.

8. In the present case, admittedly, the illegal excavation of mineral done by the petitioner has been found to have taken place. However, while locking ATR of the petitioner, imposition of penalty has been kept pending.

9. The order impugned therefore is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(4) and the proviso thereto. The impugned order dated 27.03.2025 is accordingly quashed and set aside.

          9.1 The respondents authorities are directed to open online ATR account of the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be given a fresh hearing in terms of notice dated 16.01.2020. After hearing the petitioner, the respondents authorities shall thereafter adjudicate and pass appropriate reasoned order in terms of Section 5(4) of Rules, 2017.

          9.2 It is directed that on the given date of hearing, the petitioner shall remain present and put-forth his submissions before the authorized officer without fail.

10. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. It is clarified that this Court has neither gone into the merits of the case nor any opinion is expressed thereon.