Krishna Pratap Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-P-5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in revenue case No. 10/A-67/2011-12 whereby under the provision of Rule 18 (5) of M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2006 (hereinafter in short ''the Rules 2006''), on account of storage of alleged sand (mineral) contrary to the Rules and Regulations, the penalty of Rs. 1,57,75,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner. Besides the imposition of penalty and direction of it''s recovery, the Deputy Director and authorized Officer of Mining Department/Tahsildar Panna, Ajaygarh was directed to make arrangement for auction of the seized sand. Apart this, the prayer to declare the aforesaid order Annexure-P-5, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is also made. In addition, the prayer for appropriate direction to the authorities of the respondents to return the seized sand and permit the petitioner to transport the same under transit passes is also made. Having heard on the question of admission, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Advocate, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order Annexure-P-5.

It is apparent that the impugned order has been passed under Rule 18 (5) of the aforesaid Rules 2006, and such order is being made by the licensing authority the Collector, is made appealable through statutory appeal under Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules 2006, before the Divisional Commissioner in Form No. 13 and accordingly the petitioner has alternative Forum to address his grievances through statutory appeal and as per law laid down by the apex Court in the matter of State of Goa and Others Vs. A.H. Jaffar and Sons, holding that ignoring the provision of statutory revision the writ petition could not be entertained. In the cited case it was held as under:-

The appeal has been argued at length. Sri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the judgment with industry and precision. But it does not appear necessary to decide whether the findings recorded by the High Court that the order of Commissioner being administrative in nature it could be reviewed by the State Government nor it is necessary to decide whether the Minister could exercise any power where the grant of lease is regulated by the Statute as in our opinion the remedy of revision having been provided by Sec. 30 of the Act, the proper course for the respondent was to approach the Central Government and not the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent expressed apprehension that the period for limitation provided in Rule 54 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 having expired, the revision might not be entertained. The proviso to the rule, however, empowers the revising authority to condone delay if it is satisfied that the revision could not be presented for sufficient cause within time. Since the respondent was pursuing its remedy in High Court bonafide, it would be sufficient cause to condone the delay and we trust that the revision if preferred within four weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being barred by time.

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has alternate Forum to file the statutory appeal against the impugned order, and such Forum could not be ignored, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the matter, the same is hereby dismissed only the aforesaid technical ground of entertainability but by extending a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order Annexure-P-5 by way of appeal provided under Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules 2006.

So far as the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner''s counsel in the matter of Rajeev Agrawal vs. State of M.P. decided by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal vide dated 21.3.2012, is concerned. In such order the availability of alternate forum of appeal under Rule 19 of the Rules 2006, was not taken into consideration and in such premises, such citation being distinguishable of this question is not helping to the petitioner.

It is observed that the appellate authority shall be at liberty to consider whether the respondent No. 3 is having the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or not.

It is further observed that on filing the appropriate application the petitioner shall be entitled to get the exclusion of the period in limitation spent by him in prosecuting this petition. Petition is dismissed but with aforesaid observations directions and liberty. There shall be no order as to the costs.