Digiana Industries Pvt Ltd. vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6748 MP

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                 CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                       &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                               ON THE 26 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 8417 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         DIGIANA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. THROUGH DHEERAJ
                         SHARMA /O SHRI M.L.SHARMA AGE 36 YEARS
                         AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER
                         COMPANY R/O AT 49-50 SAMPAT FARM 6TH CROSS
                         ROAD, BICHOLI MARDANA INDORE (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI SHREYAS DHARMADHIKARI - ADVOCATE)


                         AND
                         1.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY
                               MINISTRY OF MINE VALLABH BHAVAN BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    COLLECTOR BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    MINING OFFICER DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the proviso to Rule 27(1) of the Madhya Pradesh (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation, Mining & Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 5/3/2023 12:08:59 PM

Storage Rules) 2022 notified on 08.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.1.

2. The main ground for challenge to the aforesaid proviso is that without there being any adjudication with respect to the so called illegalities committed by the Mine Operators and without even providing any opportunity of hearing to them and without there being any detailed enquiry, a huge penalty 30 times of the fine amount has been imposed. Inasmuch as now for filing appeal, a person is required to deposit 10% of the fine amount imposed by the authorities. The same is in gross violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"1. Call for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal;

2. Issue a Writ in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned Proviso of Rule 27(1) of the Madhya Pradesh (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation, Mining & Storage Rules) 2022 notified on 08.04.2022. Ultra Vires of Article 14 & 19 of the Constitution (Annexure P-1).

3. Issue a Writ in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.06.2022 (Annexure P-12) along with recovery order dated 22.02.2023 (Annexure P-13).

4. Any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs, deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

5. Saddle the cost of the petition on the respondents."

3. At the outset, counsel appearing for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that a similar issue has been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 11 SCC 311 which was subsequently followed in the case of Director, Employees State Insurance Health Care and others Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited and others in Civil Appeal No. 3464 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30369 of 2017. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 5/3/2023 12:08:59 PM

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank reported in (2011) 4 SCC 548, has held as under:

"8. It is well-settled that when a statute confers a right of appeal, while granting the right, the legislature can impose conditions for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of the Act, the conditions hedged in the said proviso cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of predeposit under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement."

4. The aforesaid judgement was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bharti Infratel Ltd Vs. Union of India in W.P No.3432 of 2018 decided on 14.08.2018 and the writ petition was dismissed. The Honble Supreme Court recently in the case of Director, Employees State Insurance Health Care (supra) has held as under:-

"8. We find that the view taken by the High Court, while relying on its earlier judgment in Ranjit Singh, that appellate authority would have the implied power to grant interim relief is not tenable. Once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied. The judgments of the High Court in Ranjit Singh and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited observing that the appellate authority has the implied power to waive the amount determined cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Hence, the condition of pre-deposit, said to be not mandatory and giving appellate authority a discretion to waive of the amount determined, is clearly not sustainable and is thus set aside.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 5/3/2023 12:08:59 PM

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed.

9. Since the employer has not deposited 25% of the determined amount which led to dismissal of the appeal, we grant four weeks time to the employer to deposit 25% of the amount so determined. If the said amount is deposited, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law."

5. Under these circumstances, the challenge to pre-deposit condition is unsustainable. The controversy has already been put to rest by the judgement as pointed out hereinabove. Hence, no relief can been extended to the petitioner.

6. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                (RAVI MALIMATH)                                     (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                  CHIEF JUSTICE                                          JUDGE
                         Prar




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRARTHANA
SURYAVANSHI
Signing time: 5/3/2023
12:08:59 PM