IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ, Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Khajuraho Minerals – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 863 of 2021
Decided On : 20-01-2021
Illegal Excavation - Mining Lease - Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 - Rule 53(1) - Rule 53(6)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a mining firm, challenged a show cause notice for illegal excavation of minerals outside the sanctioned lease area. The firm argued bias and malice on the part of the authorities and disputed the quantity of minerals excavated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice was issued based on a joint inspection by mining and revenue departments, and the quantification of penalty was tentative, subject to the petitioner's reply. The court dismissed the petition but directed the Collector to provide a hearing to the petitioner and make a final decision within three months.
Issues: Bias and malice of authorities, disputed quantity of excavated minerals, application of Rule 53(1) and Rule 53(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the show cause notice was not issued with a predetermined mind and the allegations of bias were irrelevant. The quantification of penalty was deemed tentative, and the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before a final decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the Collector was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and make a final decision within three months.
ORDER :
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ.
Hearing convened through Video Conferencing.
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-M/s. Khajuraho Minerals challenging the show cause notice dated 05.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Collector, District Chhatarpur in Case No. 0201/A-67/Minerals/2020-21 and also challenging the report dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the Mines Inspector, District Chhatarpur and Panchnama dated 31.10.2020 (Annexure P-3) prepared by the officials of the Mines and Revenue Departments.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as emerging from the pleadings of the writ petition, is that the petitioner is holding a mining lease in respect of land admeasuring 4 Hectares comprising in Khasra No. 1259 and 11 Hectares comprising in Khasra No. 1293 both in Mouza Budaur. The respondents, on receiving complaint against the petitioner for illegal and unauthorised excavation of minerals outside the leasehold area, got an inspection conducted jointly by the representatives of the Mines and Revenue Departments. A panchnama of the inspection was prepared on 31.10.2020 (Annexure P-3). According to the panchnama, the inspection was carried out in the presence of certain villagers by the officers of the Mines Department and the Mines Inspectors, Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector, Chhatarpur, Patwari of Halka Chhatarpur, Patwari of Halka Bagauta, Patwari of Halka Deri and Chainman. The representatives of the petitioner-Company were also present. On inspection it was found that while the petitioner-Company was undertaking the mining activities within the sanctioned lease area of 11 Hectares in Khasra No. 1293 but illegal excavation was being carried out outside the lease area of 4.000 Hectares in Khasra No. 1259 to the extent of 0.180 Hectares. The depth of the pit was found to be nine meters. The Mining Inspector submitted the report to the Collector, Chhatarpur vide report dated 04.11.2020 (Annexure P-2) stating therein that as per the amended Rule 53(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996"), for the illegal excavation carried out on the first occasion, the defaulter mining lease holder is liable to a minimum 30-times penalty on the royalty of illegally extracted minerals but the amount of fine in any case shall not be less than Rs. 10,000/-. However, as per Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, upon the illegal extractor submitting an application for compounding and disposal of mineral in the event of first time violation, 25-times penalty of the royalty of illegally excavated minerals or Rs. 10,000/-, whichever is more, shall be imposed.
3. The Collector, Chhatarpur served a show cause notice on the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 dated 05.12.2020 in terms of Rule 53(1)(a) of the Rules of 1996, that as per the aforesaid inspection, the quantity of the illegally excavated stone was approximately 16200 cubic meter for which an amount of Rs. 19,44,000/- was payable as royalty and 30-times thereof being Rs. 5,83,20,000/-, is the proposed penalty. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to appear before the Collector on 21.12.2020 at 02.00 p.m. to submit his reply along with the documents, failing which the penalty shall be imposed upon him as per the rules.
4. Shri Prashant Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a reputed Partnership Firm in the field of mining and it is for the first time in the history that the petitioner has been subjected to biased action by the respondents by impugned show cause notice. The quarry lease for extracting stones and for establishing stone crusher for making Gitti was granted to the petitioner for a period of 10 years over the aforesaid Khasra Nos. 1259 and 1293 vide orders dated 23.09.2002 and order dated 30.01.2003 respectively, which was further renewed for a period of 10 years. The possession of the demarcated area was handed over to the petitioner for extraction of the minor minerals. It is conten
Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and others
AI
The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing to the petitioner before making a final decision on the show cause notice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair inspection procedures and the application of relevant legal provisions to determine the legality of excavation activities.
The court emphasized the importance of providing a copy of inspection reports and an opportunity of hearing before raising a demand against a party.
The show cause notice must provide details of the nature of the offence and the grounds on which it has been issued, and the subsequent order cannot go beyond the scope of the show cause notice, viol....
The issuance of a demand notice for seigniorage fee without proper consideration of the petitioners' explanations constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating remand for further evaluati....
Supreme Court had enunciated in clear and unambiguous terms that excavation of ordinary earth for construction of building purposes / development would not attract levy of royalty and penalty under p....
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.