Madhya Pradesh High Court

G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2022

Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal

                            (1)    MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                    AT GWALIOR

                                  BEFORE
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL



  MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021


     Between:-
     G.R.  INFRAPROJECTS   LTD.   THR.  AUTHORIZED
     REPRESENTATIVE MR MONIT BHATNAGAR PLOT NO. 18TH
     SECTOR 18 NOVUS TOWER 2ND FLOOR GURUGRAM
     (HARYANA)
                                                          .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI NAVNIDHI PARHARYA, ADVOCATE)

     AND

    STATE OF MP. THROUGH POLICE STATION NOORABAD
1.
   DIST. MORENA M.P.
   MR. VIRENDRA VERMA S/O SHRI RAMMANI VERMA,
2.
   MINERAL INSPECTOR, DISTRICT MORENA
                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
     (SHRI LOKENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
     STATE )
     (SHRI MADHAV KHURANA WITH MS. TRISHA MITTAL,
     ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Reserved on            :      26.04.2022
                       Delivered on           :      30.05.2022

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for hearing this day, this court

passed the following:

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC for (2) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

quashing of FIR dated 14.12.2020 registered at crime No. 297/202

at Police Station Noorabad District Morena M.P. for the offence

punishable under Section 379/414 of IPC and Rule 18(1) of The MP

Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage)

Rules, 2006 and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the proceedings

arising thereunder.

Brief facts of the case for disposal of this petition are that

petitioner-company got a contract by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited

for laying and construction of railway tracks, bridges and related

civil construction work between Dholpur Railway Station to Antri

Railway Station. For carrying out the aforesaid construction work

gitti was required. Petitioner-company filed an application before

the Collector (Minerals Division) District Gwalior dated

25.02.2019 for seeking temporary permit for excavation of 68,000

Cubic meters of ordinary earth. During pendency of aforesaid

application before Collector, Company received demand letter

dated 03.05.2019 asking petitioner to pay as royalty Rs.

68,00,000/- @ Rs. 100/- per cubic meter for excavation.

Afterwards petitioner/company sought detail of the aforesaid

demand of royalty, but company did not get any communication (3) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

from respondents. As per Rule 68 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules,

1996 sub-clause (3) royalty is not payable for ordinary clay/earth

where construction work is carried out under the public sector and

permission for extraction of the minor mineral may be granted

from the concerned Authority, on furnishing proof of the contract.

Since petitioner-company is executing a contract for laying of the

Railway track on behalf of Railway Vikas Nigam Limited, which

is a government company, is entitled to the exemption and is not

required to pay any royalty for the extraction of ordinary earth.

Petitioner responded to the demand letter dated 03.05.2019

but when no response has been communicated to the petitioner-

company of its response dated 18.10.2019, he approached this

Court by filing of WP 26525/2019. In the said WP, the Division

Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.08.2020 modified its

order dated 17.12.2019 and allowed the petitioner-company to

continue work under the contract with the Central Government,

subject to furnishing monthly bank guarantees in favour of the

Collector Gwalior equivalent to the royalty self assessed by the

petitioner-company. In compliance of the interim order,

petitioner-company wrote letters to the Collector (Mineral

Division) District Gwalior so that it may furnish the Bank (4) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

Guarantees. Petitioner received fresh demand letter dated

28.01.2020 issued by the Collector District Morena for a sum of

Rs. 68,00,000/- for the issuance of temporary excavation permit.

The petitioner-company again informed the Collector about

interim order passed by the Division Bench. Despite knowing

very well that petition is pending before the Division Bench and

interim order has been passed in favour of petitioner, Collector

District Morena issued show cause notice to the petitioner-

company. In the order dated 17.08.2020 it was also observed

"none of the parties shall draw any equity from this interim

arrangement". In compliance of the order passed by Division

Bench Company has deposited bank guarantees amounting to Rs.

3,54,50,000/- with Collector Morena. Despite this in reference

letter of Judicial Magistrate Morena dated 23.11.2020 Mining

Inspector Morena Virendra Verma lodged a written complaint

before SHO Noorabad District Morena against petitioner-

company. On the basis of said complaint, impugned FIR has been

registered against Ashok Sharma and Vidyaram Gurjar who are

associates with the Company. Matter was investigated. Both the

accused are absconding since registration of crime. Chief Judicial

Magistrate Morena gave direction to Mining Inspector in (5) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

reference to direction passed in Jayant Vs. State of M.P. reported

in 2020 SCC Online SC 989. In the aforesaid judgment, direction

has been given to all Chief Judicial Magistrate " a copy of this

order be communicated to the all Chief Judicial Magistrate

working in State of Madhya Pradesh with the direction to call for

and examine the record and if any illegality or irregularity is

found to be committed, the action be taken against the responsible

person as is done by the learned JMFC Mandsaur".

It is submitted that CJM Morena passed an arbitrary order

without applying his mind and without arriving at the conclusion

that any illegality has been committed, directed the Mineral

Inspector, Morena (M.P.) to lodge FIR. As per Rule 68 of the

Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 Companies are

exempted from giving royalty to the State. Despite direction of

Hon'ble High Court, FIR has been registered against petitioner-

company. It is also submitted that despite company deposited five

bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 3,54,50,000/-, the impugned

FIR has been registered. Hence, it is prayed that aforesaid FIR

registered against petitioner-Company be quashed.

In reply respondent has submitted that petitioner-company

had submitted an application seeking permission to excavate land (6) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

bearing survey No. 1666/2 admeasuring 0.5700 hectare situated

at Village Jedrua, Noorabad District Morena. Mining Inspector on

6.2.20 during inspector of the aforesaid land found that petitioner

company without taking any permission excavated 4080 cubic

meter soil and submitted inquiry report on 7.2.20. In a bunch of

petitions, coordinate Bench of this court gave direction to all

Chief Judicial Magistrate of State to inquire the matter regarding

crime related to mines and minerals and give direction. In

compliance of aforesaid direction CJM Morena on the

information of illegal mining directed the Mining Officer Morena

to lodge a report. Till the petitioner could not get permission to

excavate the aforesaid land. Due to aforesaid illegal excavation,

registered notice has been given to the petitioner but despite

giving him ample opportunities, petitioner did not file any reply.

Therefore, vide order dated 17.03.2021 Collector Morena as per

Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 imposed penalty of

Rs. 67,20,000/- against petitioner-Company. When panchanama

of aforesaid illegal mining was prepared. Manager of aforesaid

Company and land owner Vidyaram were present. It is also

submitted that without permission petitioner company excavated

4080 cubic meter soil due to which FIR has been registered.

(7) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

Petitioner is free to raise all grounds at the stage of framing of

charge. Besides this since the registration of FIR, accused are

absconding.

From the side of petitioner is submitted that Coordinate

Bench of Indore in Jayant Vs. State of M.P. 2020 SC Online SC

989 has directed all Chief Judicial Magistrate to examine the

record and take action only "if any illegality or irregularity is

found to be committed". It was never intended that against every

person FIR should be registered who is carrying out mining

activities. Company has regularly deposited bank guarantees

towards royalty payable to the excavated mineral. Till today

petitioner-company has deposited bank guarantees amount to Rs.

4 crores with Collector Morena.

It is not disputed that petitioner-company is engaged in

construction of 3rd railway line from Dholpur railway station to

Antri railway station, had applied for permission of mining in the

land belonging to Vidyaram who also consented with petitioner-

company for carrying out excavation on his land. On his

application demand notice of the Mining Department to pay Rs.

68 Lakhs has been given to the petitioner-company. Thereafter

petitioner-company seeks clarification regarding aforesaid amount (8) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

but from the side of Collector (Mineral Division) Gwalior, no

communication was made to the Company. Thereafter the

Company had filed writ petition bearing No. 26525/19 before the

Court. In the said petition the Division Bench of this Court on

17.12.2019 issued following directions:-

"The principal contention of learned Senior Counsel is that benefit of exemption from payment of royalty for extraction of clay used for construction works is not only available to the public sector, authority, board, local body of the State Government but also under the Central Government in terms of proviso to Sub Rule 3 of Rule 68 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for brevity "1996 Rules"). It is further submitted that expression "Government Department of State" found in the aforesaid proviso if read in conjunction with Rule 68 (1) (i) of 1996 Rules, would include Central Government and its authorized contractor (as is the case herein) to be entitled to the said exemption for payment of royalty. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 vide P/1 levying royalty upon the petitioner who has undertaken the contractual work assigned by the Central Government for laying third railway track between Dhaulpur to Antri, has been issued in ignorance of the aforesaid statutory exemption.

Looking to the arguable point involved and the public importance of the project in question which has come to standstill, this Court deems it appropriate to extend benefit of interim direction as follows:-

(I) The petitioner shall be allowed to carry out work under the agreement entered into with the Central Government subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee every month equivalent to the royalty calculated at the admissible rate of clay extracted for the said work during every month, in favour of Collector Gwalior, which shall be kept alive till final decision of this petition.

(II) The aforesaid interim order shall remain subject to final decision of the present case."

The said order was modified by order dated 17.08.2020

which is reproduced below:-

(9) MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.10036 OF 2021

"After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, this court is of the considered view that following directions deserves to be passed to resolve the dispute with ultimate object of expediting the project involving public interest :- (1) The petitioner shall, on a monthly basis, furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the royalty self assessed by petitioner based on actual extraction of ordinary clay by petitioner at the rate notified by the State in it's Notification dated 1/1/2020 filed alongiwth I.A.1215/20, as Annexure-P/5. (2) The aforesaid arrangement shall remain subject to final assessment made by Collector at his own level within 15 days of furnishing bank guarantee by petitioner (supra). (3) In case assessment so made by the Collectors is more than the bank guarantee furnished by petitioner, 4 WP.26525.2019 then petitioner shall be obliged to furnish additional bank guarantee equivalent to cover up the deficiency within next 15 (fifteen) days of the assessment made by the Collectors. (4) The aforesaid arrangement and assessment made by the petitioner and as well as the Collectors from time to time shall remain subject to final outcome of this petition and none of the parties shall draw any equity from this interim arrangement.

(5) The interim order dated 17/12/2019 stands modified to the extent indicated above.

The State and it's functionaries are granted two weeks' time to file additional reply, if they so desire and petitioner thereafter is granted one week's time to file counter, if any. List this case for final hearing at motion stage in the week commencing 7/9/2020.