Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh Sikarvaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 8113 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAGHVENDRA SINGH SIKARVAAR S/O LATE SHRI
VEERENDRA SINGH SIKARVAAR AGED ABOUT 37
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O SIKARVAR
SADAN, AAZAAD NAGAR GALI NO. 3, MORAR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
MINING, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
MINING , VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING,
KHANIJ BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE COLLECTOR DATIA, DISRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE TAHSILDAR, BADAUNI, DISTICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE MINING OFFICER, DATIA, DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
2
( BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Vivek Rusia
passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the orders
dated 18/1/2021, 19/12/2022 and 13/03/2024 passed by the respondents.
2. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
The petitioner was granted a lease for the period of 10 years for the
purpose of installation of Crusher and excavation of stone for the period
17/01/2017 to 16/01/2027. The area of the land is 2.160 hectares of Survey No.
337 situated in Village Hathlai, Tahsil Badauni, District Datia. According to the
petitioner, Collector Datia issued a letter dated 31/7/2017 to the Tahsildar for
conducting the process of demarcation of the aforesaid land. The Tahsildar
initiated the proceedings but no demarcation was carried out. As such, the
petitioner could not start the mining activities. Meanwhile, the COVID-19
pandemic affected the entire country from 25th March 2019. The petitioner was
served with the notice dated 12/2/2020 by the Mining Officer demanding dead
rent for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 of Rs.4,80,000/-. The petitioner
submitted a reply to the notice. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the
petitioner. Vide order dated 18/1/2021, Collector Datia has cancelled the lease
and also imposed a penalty of dead rent of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at the rate
of 24% per annum. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, of
Geology and Mining. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated
20/12/2022. Thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 60(1) of the
M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996") before the
Government of Madhya Pradesh, which has been dismissed vide order dated
13/3/2024 due to non-deposit of 10% of total recovery amount. Hence, this
petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not
liable to pay 10% of the amount of recovery as there was no provision in the
Rules of 1996. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that a new
amendment in Rule 60(5) of the Rules of 1996 was introduced vide gazette
notification dated 22/1/2021, whereas the impugned order against which appeal
was filed was passed on 18/1/2021. Therefore, the amendment brought in Rule
60(5) is prospective in nature and the State Government has wrongly dismissed
the appeal. In support of his contention, Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel
has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of
ECGC Ltd. Vs. Mokul Shriram (Civil Appeal 1842 of 2021) and the order
dated 13/2/2023 passed in the case of M/s Bhartiya Constructions Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal 1062-63/2023)
4. Shri Khedkar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State is not disputing the aforesaid proposition of law that the amendment
brought by way of Rule 60(5) in the Rules of 1996 is prospective and will not
apply in the case of petitioner as he preferred an appeal against the impugned
order dated 18/1/2021 that was issued prior to the date of gazette notification
dated 22/1/2021. The order passed in the case of Bharti Constructions (Supra)
is reproduced below:
" 1 Leave granted
2 While issuing notice on 21 November 2022, the submissions
which were urged on behalf of the appellant were summarized in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order, which read as follows:
"1 Mr. P S Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, submits that though the appeal
which was filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the
Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996 is liable to be
transferred under the repeal and savings provisions of Rule
31 of the Rules of 2022, the requirement of pre-deposit
contained in the third proviso to Rule 27(1) will have no
application
2 The senior counsel further submits that when the
appeal was filed under the old Rules, there was no
requirement of pre-deposit and such a condition has been
brought into effect for the first time when the new Rules of
2022 have been issued"
3 On 12 December 2022, this Court stayed the requirement of
pre-deposit of 10% under the Madhya Pradesh Mineral
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage)
Rules, 2022.
4 The appeal in the present case was filed on 12 November
2019. The new Rules of 2022 came into force on 19 July 2022.
In the circumstances, the appeal which has been instituted by the
appellant shall be disposed of without insisting on the
requirement of pre-deposit of 10%. The orders of the High Court
dated 7 September 2022 and 28 September 2022 shall
accordingly stand set aside and be substituted by the above
directions.
5 The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
6 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."
5. In view of the aforesaid verdict of the Apex Court, the impugned
order dated 13/03/2024 (Annexure P/3) is set aside. The appeal is remitted back
to the Under Secretary, Department of Mining to decide the appeal without
insisting on a deposit of 10% of the fine amount.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
