Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Agrawal S/O Devkinandan Agrawal ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16227
1 WP-3010-2025
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 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3010 of 2025
PANKAJ AGRAWAL S/O DEVKINANDAN AGRAWAL DIRECTOR G
R INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 11.01.2021 & 03.09.2024,
whereby penalty of Rs.51,30,000/- under Rule 53(5) Madhya Pradesh Minor
Minerals Rules, 1996 has been imposed and thereafter, the appeal has been
dismissed respectively.
02. The petitioner has challenged both the order inter alia on the
ground that he did not apply for compounding under Rule 53(5) of the M.P.
Minor Minerals Rules, therefore, the authority has wrongly passed the order
of compounding. The petitioner is ready to face the prosecution under Rule
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16227
2 WP-3010-2025
53(4) of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules.
03. Similar issue was raised before this Court in the cases of Rajeev
Agrawal v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Appeal No.1320
of 2011) , Kamlesh Bhandari & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others (Writ Petition No.7014 of 2019) & Satyendra Singh Raghuwanshi v/s
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No.29419 of 2023)
and the Division Bench has consistently held that the order of compounding
cannot be passed without consent of the parties. Relevant portion of the
order passed in the case of Satyendra Singh Raghuwanshi (supra) is
reproduced below:-
''Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of
Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the cases of Writ Appeal
No.1320/2011 (Rajeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P and Others) and
Others) and W.P. No.7014/2019 (Kamlesh Bhandari & Others Vs.
State of M.P. & Others) and sought parity.
Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for
dismissal of petition. According to him, penalty could have been
imposed by the Collector besides referring the matter to the
Magistrate for trial.
Heard.
In this case, petitioner is admittedly faced the proceedings under
Rule 18 of Rules of 2006 and under Section 53(5) of Rules of
1996. In both the provisions, compounding appears to be a
situation where both the parties have consented for settlement in a
particular manner. Compounding involves consent of both the
parties, especially the accused. This aspect has been considered by
the Coordinate Bench in the case of Rajeev Agrawal (supra) and
held that appellant cannot be compelled to compound the offence
and if appellant does not show eagerness for payment of penalty
imposed, then the only course left open to the Collector to make a
report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try such offence. In
the present case, no such consent has been taken from the
petitioner for compounding.
Original record produced by counsel for respondent/State indicates
that no such application was ever filed by petitioner for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16227
3 WP-3010-2025
compounding. In absence thereof, it was not a case of
compounding per se. Therefore, impugned orders are hereby set
aside and the Collector is directed to reconsider the case in
accordance with law after its restoration at the office of Collector
and pass appropriate order and ensure consequential follow up
action.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case and the Collector shall decide the case on its
own merits as per law.''
04. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 11.01.2021 &
03.09.2024 are hereby quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to take
the action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
05. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
