ORDER

Dharmadhikari, J:- 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails the order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3/Collector, Alirajpur by which while exercising the powers under rules 20(2) of the M.P. Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading), Rules 2019 (for brevity “2019 Rules”) has confiscated the seized vehicle (Dumper) bearing registration No. MH-18/BG/5094 (12 Tyres) and the sand belonging to the petitioners and also imposed the penalty of Rs.2,81,250/- for having indulged in illegal mining and transportation of sand.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.2 is the registered owner of a commercial vehicle (Dumper) bearing registration No.MH18/BG/5094 (12 Tyres). On 14.10.2021, the Mining Officer, Alirajpur intercepted the said vehicle and ignoring the permit and Inter-State Transit Pass seized the same and took it in his custody.

3. The Mining Officer, Alirajpur submitted the report dated 14.10.2021 to the Collector, Alirajpur proposing penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- or payment of compounding fees of Rs.1,00,000/- for violation of rule 20(2) of rules, 2019 and Rs.81,250/- for payment of compounding fees of Rs.40,625/- under rule 20(1) of rules, 2019.

4. A case of illegal mining and transportation was registered against the petitioners viz. case No.0072/A-67/2021-22. A show-cause notice dated 21/10/2021 was issued to the petitioners contemplating action under rule 20(1) and rule 20(2) of the rules, 2019 and confiscation of vehicle under Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for brevity “Rules, 1996”). The petitioners submitted the reply dated 26.10.2021 admitting violation on pretext of inadvertence and expressed their willingness to deposit the compounding fees. However, the Collector, Alirajpur by order dated 29.10.2021 ordered for confiscation of vehicle in question exercising powers under rule 53 of rules, 1996. An appeal was filed by the petitioners but since the appeal was not decided, the petitioners was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. No.11120/2022. Vide order dated 11.5.2022 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioners expeditiously. Vide order dated 20.10.2022 the appeal was decided against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners again approached before this Court in W.P. No.26398/2022, which was allowed vide order dated 20.10.2022 and the impugned order was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Alirajpur to decide the appeal again in light of the order dated 5.10.2021 passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.9664/2021.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is that vide impugned order dated 16.12.2022 instead of taking into consideration the request of petitioners for compounding and decide the case in accordance with the order dated 5.10.2021 passed in W.P. No.9664/2021, Collector, Alirajpur has imposed the penalty of Rs.2,81,250/-, contrary to the provisions of rule 20 of rules, 2019, that too without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are made to run from pillar to post to seek justice. The livelihood of the petitioners is dependent on the vehicle in question, which is lying in the custody of respondents for their inability to pay the huge penalty. The vehicle has been parked in a open place at concerned Police Station and is getting rusted and deteriorated, hence this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.3 erred in not considering the request of the petitioners for compounding. No reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners nor their reply was considered. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of unilateral enquiry, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State fairly