Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran stated that actual movement of a vehicle is not required to treat the handling of minerals as transport under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and clarified that the process begins once minerals are loaded into a vehicle. The matter concerned the seizure of a goods carriage from a crusher unit on allegations of moving minerals without lawful authority. The Court recorded that the available materials indicated prior loading, which was sufficient to trigger the provision permitting seizure. It determined that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy before the Magistrate to contest the factual assertions surrounding the seizure.

The matter arose when officers under the District Geologist seized a goods carriage vehicle from the premises of a granite industry, alleging illegal transportation of minerals under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The seizure was acknowledged through a document issued by the Geologist. The petitioner asserted that the vehicle was empty at the time of seizure and that he had intended to leave the premises after learning that the unit lacked valid GST registration.

Also Read: Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act | Landlord Need Not File Fresh Section 12(1) Application In Tenant’s Appeal Against Eviction: Supreme Court

The petitioner relied on a prior Division Bench decision interpreting Section 21(4) to argue that a mere intention to transport minerals does not amount to transportation and therefore does not attract the statutory consequences. He contended that transportation requires actual movement of the vehicle and that such movement had not occurred.

The Government Pleader opposed the petition, submitting a copy of the mahazar prepared by the Geologist, which recorded that the vehicle was loaded with minerals at the time of seizure and that the load was subsequently unloaded at the quarry before the vehicle was taken to the police station. It was further stated that no transit pass or movement permit was produced and that the matter had already been reported to the Magistrate.

The Court addressed the petitioner’s reliance on the precedent in Unais by noting that “the Division Bench was dealing with cases where the tipper lorries or the vehicles seized were empty at the time of seizure; and not loaded with minerals.” It was recorded that the factual scenario in this case differed because, “going by the respondent-officials, the vehicle was loaded at the time of seizure and the same was unloaded before it was taken to the 2nd respondent/S.H.O.”

The Court stated that disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings: “this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into that disputed question of fact… Contentions to the contrary, if any, of the petitioner will have to be proved before the appropriate authority.”

Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act was reproduced, and the Court discussed the statutory focus: “the focus is on seizure; and not on punishing the wrongdoer.” To construe the meaning of “transport,” the Court referred to legal and dictionary definitions, concluding that the word involves carrying a thing from one place to another.

Critically, the Court held that “the process of transport or transportation commences with the loading of the mineral into the vehicle, in order to carry it from one place to another.” It stated: “The movement of the vehicle, by itself, is of no moment, unless the vehicle is loaded with mineral.”

Further, regarding the mischief intended to be remedied by the provision, the Court recorded: “The mischief sought to be suppressed by Section 21(4) is to prevent the user of such vehicles or tools for raising or transporting a mineral, without any lawful authority.”

Based on the Mahazar, the Court observed: “The fact that the vehicle was loaded with a mineral has to be prima facie taken to be true… There is no material on record to indicate that the movement of the mineral was not enabled by any transit pass or movement permit.” Applying the said reasoning: “the loading of the vehicle with the mineral for the purpose of transportation would make a sea change to the scenario… the process of transportation had, in fact, begun.”

Also Read: Overcrowding In Guruvayur Now A Municipal-Level Civic Challenge ; Kerala High Court Directs Structural Crowd-Management Reforms And Constitutes Permanent 7-Member multi-departmental committee

The Court concluded: “This Court also finds no reason to grant the relief sought for in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek statutory remedy before the learned Magistrate, where the matter has been reported, the instant Writ Petition will stand dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Adv. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal

For the Respondents: Sri. Ajith Viswanathan, Government Pleader

Case Title: Pranav Mohanan v. District Geologist & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:88205
Case Number: WP(C) No. 37796 of 2025
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran