[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrey Prajapat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5700
1 WP-7149-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7149 of 2026
SHREY PRAJAPAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal and Shri Jayesh Gurnani - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Rahul Sethi - A.A.G for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 19/1/2026 passed by the respondent No.2
whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of his name
from the case registered by the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the report
dated 9/4/2025 filed by the respondent No.3 alleging illegal storage of
mineral over the land bearing survey no.363/1/1, 364/6, 365/2 and 364/5/1 of
village Raver, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore, total admeasuring 1.993
Hectare was rejected.
The petitioner filed an application for deletion of his name in the
aforesaid case in compliance to the order dated 17/12/2025 passed by this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5700
2 WP-7149-2026
Court in W.P No.48757/2025. In the earlier round, the petitioner had
challenged the order by which his application was rejected. This Court found
that the application was rejected without proper consideration of the
contention raised by the petitioner. The order was set aside and the authority
was directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner for
deletion of his name in accordance with the law.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Panchnama regarding illegal
storage of mineral was prepared on 6/3/2025 and the land in question was
purchased by him by registered sale deed on 7/3/2025 i.e subsequently the
date of preparation of Panchnama regarding illegal storage. It is submitted
that on the date of alleged preparation of Panchnama regarding illegal
storage of mineral, he was not the owner of the property. He placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Sharma vs.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 4589.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and
submitted that the authority has passed a reasoned and speaking order as
directed by this Court taking into consideration the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
impugned order, this Court finds that the authority has taken into
consideration the record, the panchnama and also the statement of one
Shadab Khan who had deposed that prior to the execution of the sale deed,
the land was already in possession of the present petitioner. We do not find
any merit in the contention of the petitioner that no offence is made out
against the petitioner under Section 3 of M.P Mineral (Prevention of Illegal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5700
3 WP-7149-2026
mining, transportation and storage) Rules, 2022 because he was not the
owner on the date of the alleged preparation of Panchnama. Upon bare
perusal of the Rule 3, we find that the alleged offence is not attributed to the
owner. The word under Rule 30 used is "no person". The word "person" does
not mean "registered owner of the property". The judgment pressed by
learned counsel for the petitioner passed in the case of Sanjay Sharma
(supra) would not render any assistance to the present case. The said case
was relating to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act whereas the present
case relates to the violation of Rules relating to storage of minerals in which
the word "person" has been used.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the petition
warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that any observation made by us would not
prejudice the contention to be raised by the petitioner in the pending
proceedings.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
