M/S Jai Siddha Baba Stone Crusher, ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1666 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Jai Siddha Baba Stone Crusher, ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2026

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6027




                                                               1                                 WP-5311-2026
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                           &
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 5311 of 2026
                                  M/S JAI SIDDHA BABA STONE CRUSHER, THROUGH ITS
                                              PARTNER, NARENDRA SINGH
                                                        Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                            Shri Prakhar Karpe - Advocate through video conferencing and Shri
                          K.K.Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
                            Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.

                                                                   ORDER

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

Heard on admission.

2. Instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

7.1 Issue a writ to quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by Respondent No.2.

7.2 Issue a writ restraining the Respondents, their agents, and employees from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner for the recovery of the penalty imposed via the impugned order.

7.3 Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of this petition.

3 . It is the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner is in receipt of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6027

2 WP-5311-2026 order dt.25.11.2025, whereby penalty of Rs.1,36,42,500/- has been imposed on the pretext of illegal mining.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers Rule 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules of 2022') and submits that violation of Rule 23 is apparent on record. Neither Panchnama has been prepared nor any report is submitted to show that any illegal mining is carried out. According to learned counsel, mining is carried out in their own personal land, therefore, order of penalty is arbitrary and illegal.

5. Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer on the ground of maintainability of petition because of availability of alternative remedy of

appeal as provided in Rule 27 of the Rules of 2022.

6. In response counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark (1998) 8 SCC 1.

7. Considering the rival submissions and going through the impugned order, it appears that contentions as raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and therefore are to be judged on the touchstone of appeal by the appellate authority. So far as judgment relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, all the reasons assigned into the impugned order are factual in nature. After opportunity of hearing impugned order is passed. Therefore, appeal is appropriate remedy. Scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus is limited. Therefore, petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition to prefer properly constituted

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6027

3 WP-5311-2026 appeal before the appellate authority. If any appeal is preferred by the petitioner, then appellate authority shall proceed in accordance with law and make an endeavour to decide the same objectively.

8. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid observations.

                                (ANAND PATHAK)                                  (ANIL VERMA)
                                    JUDGE                                          JUDGE
                          SP