MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sanjay Yadav, Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Pankaj Kumar Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7941 of 2020
Decided On : 10-06-2020
Sand Mining - Petitioner seeks permission to sell sand stored over his land and to continue the license for a period of 5 years - Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019 - Section 15, Section 23C, Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Rule 18 of Rules of 2019 - The court found that the license issued on 05.10.2018 stands cancelled w.e.f. 30.08.2019, and the direction to continue the license cannot be granted. The impugned communication dated 26.05.2020 is in consonance with the stipulations contained in Rule 18 of Rules of 2019, and the petition is premature as there is no cause of action for the present. The petitioner has a remedy under Rule 22 of Rules of 2019 to file an appeal if aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges a communication issued by the Department of Mineral Resources, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, seeking permission to sell sand stored over his land and to continue the license for a period of 5 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the license issued on 05.10.2018 stands cancelled w.e.f. 30.08.2019, and the direction to continue the license cannot be granted. The impugned communication dated 26.05.2020 is in consonance with the stipulations contained in Rule 18 of Rules of 2019, and the petition is premature as there is no cause of action for the present. The petitioner has a remedy under Rule 22 of Rules of 2019 to file an appeal if aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector.
Issues: The issues revolve around the petitioner's request to sell sand stored over his land and to continue the license for a period of 5 years, in light of the Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the license issued on 05.10.2018 stands cancelled w.e.f. 30.08.2019, and the direction to continue the license cannot be granted. The impugned communication dated 26.05.2020 is in consonance with the stipulations contained in Rule 18 of Rules of 2019, and the petition is premature as there is no cause of action for the present. The petitioner has a remedy under Rule 22 of Rules of 2019 to file an appeal if aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector.
Final Decision: The petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Yadav, J. - Petitioner challenges the communication No.1950/865/ 2020/12/1 dated 26.05.2020 issued by Department of Mineral Resources, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, addressed to Collectors of all Districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner also seeks direction to permit him to sell 1620 MTs sand stored over a land bearing Khasra No.297/2 admeasuring 1.619 hectare situated at Village Tala Gram Panchayat Badkhera Tahsil Chandia District Umaria (M.P.). And, to permit him to store and trade of minor mineral as per licence dated 05.10.2018, issued by the Competent Authority for a period of 5 years. The petitioner also seeks cost of petition amounting Rs.5 lakhs.
2. Evidently, the impugned communication is in furtherance to the Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019 (for short "Rules of 2019"), framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 and Section 23C read with Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 vide Notification No.F 19-2/2019/XII-1 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 30.08.2019.
3. With the advent of Rules of 2019, the provisions relating to mineral sand contained in Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, Madhya Pradesh (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 and Madhya Pradesh Sand Rule, 2018 stood repealed to the extent where it does not transgress the Rules of 2019.
4. That, Rule 18 of Rules of 2019 makes provisions regarding jurisdiction of the Collector for special permission for disposal of quantity upto 1.00 lakh cubic meter sand stored legally. It is in order to regulate the same, the State Government issued the impugned guidelines which is reproduced for ready reference :
5. Grievance of the petitioner is that having being granted licence for sand mining, transportation, storage and trading under the Rules of 2018 on 05.10.2018 and ID Password given on 06.02.2019 for purchasing the sand, in pursuance whereof, having stored 1630 MTs, the petitioner is not allowed to transport and sell the same because of the stoppage of ID password in June, 2019. It is urged that through the petitioner was subjected to show cause notice on 19.07.2019 as regard to less quantity of 51.04 MTs (1671.04 MTs shown online 1620 MTs found on the spot on physical verification); however, since no action has been taken thereon and vide letter No.1420/[kfut/2019, Umaria dated 13.09.2019, the petitioner being called upon to obtain ETP from M.P. Pollution Control Board. Abiding by the same, the petitioner having obtained the consent of Pollution Control Board on 21.10.2019 with its validity till 22.11.2019. It is urged that despite all formalities, the petitioner has not been granted the permission to sell the sand duly stored over his land. The petitioner, it is contended, apprehends the confiscation of sand in terms of the impugned communication.
6. It is in the wake of these facts, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :
(1) To quash Annexure P/1 dated 26.05.2020 in so far as it concerns the petitioner;
(2) To order the respondents to permit the petitioner to sell his sand (1620 MTs) which petitioner has purchased as per his licence Annexure P/3 for which appropriate permission and user id and password may be ordered to be given to the petitioner by the respondents;
(3) To order the respondents to continue the licence of the petitioner Annexure P/3 for a period of 5 years invoking its powers under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2019 (P/2);
(4) To direct the respondents to pay costs to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs; and
(5) To pass such other order as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
7. As to Relief No.3, whereby the petitioner seeks continuation of the licence issued on 05.10.2018, the same cannot be granted in view of the stipulations contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Rules of 2019 which stipulates :
18. Storage of mineral sand.-
(1) All the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.