Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhav Infra Project Limited ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 27606 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MADHAV INFRA PROJECT LIMITED THROUGH POWR
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ALOK RAI S/O SH.
MANORANJAN RAI, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESSMAN OFFICE AT MADHAV HOUSE PLOT NO. 4,
PANCHTANTRA BUILDING, SUBHANPURA, VADODARA
(GUJARAT)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RANJEET DWIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
MINING DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH PRESIDENT
BOARD OF REVENUE GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TEHSILDAR ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI ANIKET NAIK, DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/27/2023
5:09:44 PM
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by
the respondent no.5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.4 has issued the work
order in favour of the petitioner for construction of bridge. During construction
of the bridge, the petitioner has constructed rough road as diversion for
movement and transportation. During construction of bridge, the mining
department raided the construction site and registered a case for illegal
excavation. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 vide order dated 07.07.2021
imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000/- for illegal excavation of soil
without conducting any inquiry under Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rule
1996. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director,
Geology and Mining which was later transferred to the Commissioner in view
of order of State Government dated 08.04.2022 wherein record was called vide
order dated 17.11.2021. Petitioner has also deposited 10% of the amount of
penalty of Rs. 80,00,000 before filing the appeal. However, during the pendency
of appeal, respondent no.4 initiated execution proceedings vide order dated
17.11.2021 and issued RRC for recovery of penalty ignoring the fact that
appeal is pending before the respondent no.3. Petitioner preferred
representation against the said RRC, but to no avail. Petitioner filed a writ
petition which was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to move an
application for grant of interim relief before the respondent no.3. Adhering to
the said direction petitioner moved an application for interim relief, but no heed
was paid over the same. Thereafter, petitioner again approached this Court by
Signature Not Verified
filing W.P. No. 9132/2022 which was disposed off vide order dated 21.04.2022
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/27/2023
5:09:44 PM
protecting the right of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.09.2022,
respondent no.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner affirming the order
passed by the respondent no.4. Against the said dismissal, petitioner filed a
revision before the Board of Revenue wherein application seeking interim relief
was also preferred. The revision was listed on various occasions. On
06.09.2023, the revision was listed for orders on interim relief and the matter
was argued at length by the counsel, but neither any order has been passed till
date nor any other date has been fixed. During the pendency of the revision,
the respondent no. 5 initiated auction proceedings in respect of recovery of
penalty of Rs. 80,00,000/- vide order dated 20.09.2023. Being aggrieved, instant
petition is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that matter was heard on
the question of admission and stay by the Board on 06.09.2023, but till now no
order has been passed. The impugned order initiating auction proceedings
passed by the respondent no. 5 is illegal and contrary to law. Respondent no.5
has passed the order in excess of power. The action of respondents is arbitrary
in as much as that on the one hand they are not considering the application for
interim relief and on the other hand initiating auction proceedings for recovery
of penalty which would render the revision infructuous. Petitioner has already
deposited 10% of the amount of penalty before the Finance Department. The
impugned action on the part of Tehsildar is in utter violation of fundamental,
constitutional and legal rights of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the
order of Tehsildar dated 20.09.2023 be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned Addnl. Advocate General for the
respondent/State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/27/2023
5:09:44 PM
Collector has rightly imposed the penalty after issuing show cause notice and
conducting inquiry in the matter and the Commissioner dismissed the appeal
affirming the order passed by the Collector and after dismissal of the appeal,
the Tehsildar has initiated the auction proceedings for recovery of penalty
imposed upon the petitioner. Hence, no case for interference is made out.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. It is settled principle of law that no person should be left remediless
as per the latin maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium' and as held by the Apex Court in
the case of Shekhar Resorts Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2023)
3 SCC 220. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:
" 20. As per the settled position of law, no party shall be left remediless
and whatever the grievance the parties had raised before the Court of law, has
to be examined on its own merits [See Sunil Vasudeva Vs. Sunder Gupta
reported in (2019) 17 SCC 385."
7. In the present case the petitioner has already preferred a revision
before the Board of Revenue and the same has been reserved for order on the
question of interim stay on 06.09.2023.
8. Looking to the averments made by the petitioner that he has already
deposited 10% of the amount of penalty before the Finance Department during
the pendency of appeal which was later on dismissed and against the said
dismissal he has approached the Board of Revenue by filing revision in which
interim stay application is pending and thereafter by order dated 20.09.2023, the
Tehsildar has initiated auction proceedings due to which petitioner is left
remediless, it would be expedient to direct the Board of Revenue to decide the
Signature Not Verified
stay application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven days from
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/27/2023
5:09:44 PM
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
9. In the meantime, the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Tehsildar,
Distt.Alirajpur for auction of the movable property of petitioner for recovery
of penalty amount to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000/- shall remain stayed till the
application for stay is decided by the Board of Revenue.
10. The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
C.C. today.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/27/2023
5:09:44 PM
