Loading of Mineral Constitutes ‘Transportation’ U/S 21(4) Of The MMDRA: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala: The Kerala High Court has held that loading minerals into a vehicle marks the commencement of “transportation” under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and that physical movement of the vehicle is not a prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings under the provision.

Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment on November 17, 2025, while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 37796 of 2025 filed by Pranav Mohanan, whose goods carriage vehicle had been seized by the District Geologist, Ernakulam, on allegations of illegal transportation of minerals.

The petitioner contended that his vehicle was empty at the time of seizure and was merely parked at the premises of a granite unit. It was argued that even if the authorities assumed an intention to transport minerals, such intention alone would not attract Section 21(4). Reliance was placed on a Division Bench ruling in District Collector v. Unais (W.A. No. 609/2023), where it was held that mere intention to transport, without actual movement, could not be penalised.

The State, represented by the Government Pleader, refuted the claim and submitted that the vehicle was loaded at the time of seizure, as recorded in the Mahazar prepared by the Geologist. It was argued that the petitioner’s driver failed to produce a valid transit pass, indicating that the mineral was being moved without lawful authority.

Justice Jayachandran observed that the Division Bench decision in Unais applied only to cases where the vehicles were empty at the time of seizure. In the present case, since the authorities had recorded that the vehicle was loaded, the question of mere intention did not arise.

Examining the scope of the term “transport” under Section 21(4), the Court held that actual movement of the vehicle was not necessary to constitute transportation. Citing standard legal dictionaries, the Court noted that “transport” means “to carry or convey from one place to another,” and that the process begins with loading the material into the vehicle.

“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. The movement of the vehicle, by itself, is of no moment, unless the vehicle is loaded with mineral,” the Court observed.

The Court added that such an interpretation aligns with the purposive rule of interpretation and the mischief rule, as Section 21(4) aims to prevent unlawful extraction or conveyance of minerals. A “hyper-technical approach,” it said, would only benefit those engaged in illegal mining or transportation.

Finding no procedural irregularity, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that the matter had already been reported to the Magistrate, before whom the petitioner could pursue statutory remedies.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Pranav Mohanan v. The District Geologist, Ernakulam & Anr.

[Read Judgment]