Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dangi Industries Through Proprietor ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23939
-1- WP-32713-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32713 of 2025
DANGI INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR DEEPAK DANGI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Samadhiya - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated
16.06.2025, whereby the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division /
Appellate Authority, has dismissed the appeal for want of deposit of
10% of the penalty.
02. The Collector (Mining), District Khargone, passed an order
dated 27.10.2022 against the petitioner and 7 others under Rule 22 of
M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation Storage)
Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2022") by imposing a
total penalty of Rs 5,56,50,000/-. Against the order above, 4 noticees,
including the petitioner, preferred an appeal, and all were heard on an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23939
-2- WP-32713-2025
issue of non-deposit of 10% of the total penalty under Rule 27 of the
Rules 2022. Vide order dated 16.06.2025, all the appeals have been
dismissed due to non-deposit of 10% amount of the total penalty
amount. Hence, this petition is before this Court.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the show cause
notice was issued under the M.P. Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage
and Trading) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2019"), but
later on, the Collector conducted the proceedings under the Rules, 2022
and passed the final order. The Collector ought to have passed the order
under the Rules, 2019.
04. Apart from the above, Rule 22 of the Rules, 2019, provides for
the remedy of appeal, in which there is no mandatory provision for
depositing 10% of the total penalty. Hence, the petitioner was not liable
to deposit 10% amount of the penalty, and the appeal was wrongly
dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at
Gwalior in the case of M/s Om Associates V/s The State of M.P. &
others in Writ Petition No.30043 of 2024, decided on 05.12.2024.
05. Shri Vishwajit Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondent / State, submits that the Rules, 2019, have been repealed
by the Rules, 2022. By virtue of Rule 31 of the Rules, 2022,
appeals/revisions pending under these rules shall be transferred to the
concerned Appellate or Revisioner authority, as the case may be. As per
Proviso to Rule 31 of Rules, 2022 anything done or any action taken
under the said rules, 2019 shall be deemed to have been done or taken
under the Rules, 2022 and the pending appeal/revision under the
repealed rules shall be transferred to the concerned Appellate or
Reversioner authority, as the case may be.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23939
-3- WP-32713-2025
Appreciations and Conclusion
06. The contention of learned counsel of the petitioner cannot be
accepted that the provisions of the repealed Rules, 2019 would be
applicable for deciding the appeal. The petitioner filed the appeal under
Rule 27 of the Rules, 2022; therefore, as per the Proviso to sub-Rule (1)
of Rule 27, the petitioner is liable for payment of 10% of the amount of
total penalty. The Poclain machine belonging to the petitioner was
seized on 08.07.2021 by the Mining Department, and thereafter, the
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the Rules, 2019 for
the recovery of penalty. Meanwhile, the Rules, 2019 have been repealed
by the Rules, 2022, thus, the Collector rightly continued the proceedings
under the Rules, 2022. The Collector passed a final order under Rule 22
of Rules, 2022 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal under
Rule 27. Rule 27 of Rules, 2022 provides as under:
"27. Appeal.-(1) Any person aggrieved by the order passed
under these rules may file an appeal within sixty days of the
date of communication of the order to the Divisional
Commissioner in Form-10. The appellant shall deposit a fee of
Rupees One Thousand in the same manner as prescribed in
clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule-8 and attach the original
treasury challan along with Form- 10:
Provided that if the appellant is a member of the Scheduled
Tribe/Scheduled Caste/Other Backwards Classes, he/she shall
deposit a fee of Rupees One Hundred in the same manner, as
prescribed in clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule-8 and attach the
original treasury challan along with Form-10:
Provided further that the appeal shall be disposed of under
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
Provided also that appeal shall be accepted on payment of
10% of amount of total penalty imposed under these rules. This
amount shall be refundable to the appellant in case of a
decision in his favour. If the decision is not in favour of
appellant, then this amount shall be adjusted against the
imposed penalty.
(2) Where an application for appeal is made under these
rules, the Appellate Authority may confirm, modify or set aside
the order passed by Collector or pass such other order in
relation thereto, as it may deem just and proper:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23939
-4- WP-32713-2025
Provided that no order shall be passed against any person
interested, unless he/she has been given an opportunity to
represent his/her case:
Provided further that the Appellate Authority may stay the
order for such time as it may deem fit. "
07. As per Proviso to Rule (1), the appeal shall be accepted on
payment of 10% of amount the total penalty imposed under these rules.
However, the said amount shall be refundable to the appellant in case of
a decision in his favour.
08. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the appeal is liable
to be entertained under Rules, 2019 is concerned, that is wholly
misconceived because the Rules, 2019 had already been repealed by
Rules, 2022, and by virtue of Rule 31, any proceedings initiated under
the repealed rules are saved and liable to be taken under Rules, 2022.
Rule 31 is reproduced below:
"31. Repeal and Saving.-Rule 53 of the Madhya Pradesh
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh
Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rules,
2019 and Madhya Pradesh (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006, are hereby repealed:
Provided that anything done or any action taken under the
said rules shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of these rules.
The appeal/revision pending under these repealed rules
shall be transferred to the concerned Appellate or Revisioner
authority, as the case may be. "
09. So far as the judgment passed in the case of M/s Om Associates
(supra) is concerned, the judgment deals with the provisions of Rule
60(5) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
"Rules, 1996"). In the said case, the lease was cancelled on 29.06.2019,
against which an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. On
22.01.2021, the Rules, 1996 were amended, which provides for the
acceptance of an appeal after the deposit of 10% of the recovery
amount. The Division Bench has held that the said amendment is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23939
-5- WP-32713-2025
procedural in nature, hence would apply prospectively as the cause of
action accrued for filing the appeal for the first time on 01.03.2017. But
in the present case, the Rules, 2019 under which the proceedings were
initiated had been repealed by the Rules, 2022 and by virtue of the
repeal and saving clause, the proceedings are liable to be transferred
under the repealed rules. Hence, the rules which have been repealed will
not apply in the case of the present petitioner.
10. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
