Maya Ram Jeswani vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 appears to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2013 (Ann. P.2) passed by the respondent No. 2, Commissioner in Appeal No. 67-A-67/2012-13 affirming the order dated 14.9.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by the respondent No. 3 Collector, Mines whereby the penalty of Rs. 66,15,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner for having the illegal possession and transportation of the stone bolder of the quantity stated in the impugned order, under Rule 18 (5) of M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage Transportation), Rule 2006 (in short "the Rules").

Initially after taking me through the averments of the petition and the papers placed on record, by referring the provision of Rule 18 of the Rules, the petitioner''s counsel has argued the case at length for admission and allowing this petition but in the available factual matrix according to which the initial order dated 14.9.2012 (Ann. P.1) was passed by the Licensing Authority, against which on filing the appeal by the petitioner under Rule 19 of the Rules, on consideration the appellate authority vide order dated 29.1.2013 (Ann. P.2) affirmed the order by dismissing the appeal and against such order further remedy of revision before the State Government under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules is available and without exhausting such remedy by the petitioner how this petition could be entertained and adjudicated by this court, on which the petitioner''s counsel by referring some judgment of the Division Bench of this court (Ann. P.4), said that such identical matter was entertained and adjudicated by this Court but after going through such order in the light of the same on examining the present matter, I have found the material distinguishable feature in the present matter in comparison of cited case. So the same is not helping to the petitioner, on which the petitioner''s counsel submits that the grounds raised in this petition to assail the impugned order could not be raised in the appeal before the appellate authority then asking that in such circumstances the remedy of review before the same authority is available to the petitioner and without exhausting aforesaid remedies how this petition could be entertained by this Court, on which instead to argue further the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the review petition before the appellate authority or to file the revision against the order of the appellate authority before the appropriate forum under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules.

In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits on the impugned orders, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with aforesaid liberties. It is observed that if the petitioners chooses to file the revision under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rule then on filing an application u/s 5 r/w Section 14 of Limitation Act and concerning provisions of the Rules, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the exclusion of period in limitation, which has been spent by him in prosecuting this petition. In any case such authority shall consider and decide the revision on merits rather than dismissed the same on the technical question of limitation.

Petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with aforesaid liberties, observation and directions. C.C. as per rules.