Smt. Rishu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6850 MP

                                   1                              WP-21962-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-21962-2021
        (SMT. RISHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

2
Gwalior, Dated : 26-10-2021


      Mr. Vijay Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order dated

25.06.2021 interalia contending that the Collector has imposed excessive penalty of twenty times over the minerals alleged to have been stored by the petitioner in exercise of the power under Rule 18 (5) of M.P. Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining transportation and Storage Rules 2006.

Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi has taken a preliminary objection as against the maintainability of the writ petition on the premise that the petitioner has alternative expeditious and efficacious remedy of filing of an appeal as contemplated under Rule 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner combats the aforesaid submissions relying upon the judgment of Indore Bench in

W.P.No.5061/2021 dated 10.03.2021. Mr. Raghuvanshi contends that the aforesaid judgment has no application with the facts in hands in as much as the said order was an interim order and not upon the final adjudication on the lis between the parties. That apart, undisputedly, the Collector has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in exercise of the power under Rule 18(5) M.P. Minerals Prevention of Illegal Mining transportation and Storage Rules 2006. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order on merits in all fairness he should approach the appropriate authority as the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for factual adjudication as regards amount of penalty imposed by the Collector.

We find substantial force in the submissions of Mr. Raghuvanshi and accordingly disposes of this writ petition with the following 2 WP-21962-2021 observations/directions :

1. Petitioner if so advised, may approach the appropriate authority within two weeks.

2. If there is prescription of limitation to prefer an appeal the period spent during pendency of this writ petition shall be excluded for computation of period of limitation.

3. The authority shall deal with the matter in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

       (ROHIT ARYA)                                               (ANAND PATHAK)
          JUDGE                                                         JUDGE

bj/-

        BARKHA
        SHARMA
        2021.10.2
        6 17:16:30
        +05'30'