Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ, and Anand Pathak, J.
Om Associates (M/s.) v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 30043 of 2024 (Gwalior); against the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Joint Director, Geology and Mining; Decided on 5.12.2024
x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼e-ç-½ && fu& 60¼5½ ¼22&1&2021 d¨ ;Fkk la'k¨fèkr½ && ykxw g¨uk && 1&3&2017 d¨ [kuu iÃk çnku fd;k x;k && 29&6&2019 d¨ jà fd;k x;k && bl vkns'k d¢ fo#) lapkyd Ò©fedh ,oa [kuu d¢ le{k vihy dh xbZ && 'kkfLr jde dk 10 izfr'kr tek djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k && D;k fu;e d¢ la'k¨èku ls ;kph dk vihy dk vfèkdkj çÒkfor gksrk gS && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && okn gsrqd 29&6&2019 d¨ mn~Hkwr gqvk tc iÃk jà fd;k x;k && ml le; fu;e 60 dk la'k¨fèkr [kaM ¼5½ vfLrRo esa ugÈ Fkk && vihy çLrqr djus d¢ fy, iwokZisf{kr 10 izfr'kr Qhl d¢ lank; dk vkxzg dj ;kph ds ekeys esa ç¨n~Ã’wr ;k fufgr vfèkdkj d¨ ifjofrZr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && la'k¨fèkr fu;e 60¼5½ vkd`"V ugÈ && vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr && dqy jde d¢ 10 izfr'kr dk vkxzg fd, fcuk vihy d¢ fofu'p;u d¢ fy, vihy çkfèkdkjh funsf'krA ¼1953½ 1 ,llhlh 299] ,vkbvkj 1960 ,llh 980] ,vkbvkj 1967 ,llh 344 rFkk ¼2022½ 2 ,llhlh 161 vuqlfjrA ¼2022½ 6 ,llhlh 704] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 6786 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 9&7&2024] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 8113 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 9&5&2024] ,vkbvkj 1979 ,llh 602] ¼1990½ 1 ,llhlh 455 rFkk ¼1987½ 3 ,llhlh 27 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14
Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M. P.) -- R. 60(5) (as amended on 22.1.2021) -- applicability -- quarry lease granted on 1.3.2017 -- cancelled on 29.6.2019 -- appeal filed before director of Geology and Mining against such order -- it was directed to deposit 10% of penalty amount -- whether amendment of rule affects petitioner's right of appeal -- held -- cause of action arose on 29.6.2019 when lease was cancelled -- at that time, amended clause (5) of rule 60 did not exist -- accrued or vested right in the case of petitioner cannot be altered by insisting on payment of 10% fee as prerequisite for filing appeal -- amended rule 60(5) not attracted -- impugned order set aside -- appellate authority directed to decide appeal without insisting upon 10% of total amount. (1953) 1 SCC 299, AIR 1960 SC 980, AIR 1967 SC 344 and (2022) 2 SCC 161 followed. (2022) 6 SCC 704, W. P. No. 6786 of 2024 decided on 9.7.2024, W. P. No. 8113 of 2024 decided on 9.5.2024, AIR 1979 SC 602, (1990) 1 SCC 455 and (1987) 3 SCC 27 referred to. [Para 14
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for reliefs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. key dates/events relevant to the case. (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioner challenges deposit requirement. (Para 4) |
| 4. respondent states deposit necessity. (Para 5) |
| 5. vested rights and appeal process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. principles on appeal rights established. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. amendments to procedure and vested rights. (Para 13) |
| 8. court sets aside deposit requirement. (Para 14) |
| 9. final order and decision. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“(i) That, the recovery document (Annexure P/1) and letter dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure P/2) be directed to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That, the appellate authority may be directed to decide the appeal without insisting upon deposit of 10% for maintaining of appeal in terms of order Annexure P/2.
(iii) That, it may be held that rules of 2018 are applicable, which nowhere provides for deposit of 10% as pre-deposit for maintaining of appeal. The rules of 1996 may be held to be not applicable.
(iv) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Joint Director (on behalf of Director, Geology and Mining) whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 10% of the outstanding/recovery amount as per rule 60(5) of the M.P. Minor Mineral, rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the MM Rules”). Petitioner is against imposition, therefore, this petition was preferred.
3. To appreciate the controversy, following dates and events are important:
| Dates | Events |
| 1.3.2017 to 31.3.2019 | The sand quarry was granted in favour of petitioner for two years. |
| 29.6.2019 | The Collector under the provisions of rule 30 (19) of MM Rules and as per condition No.4 (3) of lease deed, the grant of quarry lease was cancelled with forfeiture of security amount of Rs.5,41,250/-. |
| 29.1.2021 | The W.P. No.2322/2021 (M/s Om Associates v.State of M.P.) was filed against the order dated 26.9.2019. |
| 23.3.2021 | The aforesaid writ petition No.2322/2021 was disposed of with direction that "In view of above discussion and more so that disputed questions of fact are involved for dealing with the merits of challenge to the impugned order of cancellation of lease deed, it would be appropriate that the same are raised before the Appellate Authority under the M.P. Minor Mineral rules, 1996. Since much time has elapsed and the statutory limitation for preferring an appeal has expired, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing herein, deems it appropriate to direct that in case petitioner prefers an appeal within one month from today before the appropriate appellate authority under M.P. Minor Mineral rules, 1996 by treating the impugned order to have been passed under M.P. Minor Mineral rules, 1996, the same would be decided by Competent Authority on merits without being dismissed on limitation alone". |
| 6.7.21 | The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the amount under rule 60(5) of the MM rules. |
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that grant of quarry lease was cancelled on 29.6.2019 against which writ petition bearing No.2322/2021 was filed in which the order dated 23.3.2021 was passed directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority (Director, Geology and Mining). On 22.1.2021, the MM rules were amended by incorporating sub-clause (5) in rule 60, according to which appeal shall be accepted once 10% of the recovery amount is deposited by the appellant. Since, according to counsel for the petitioner, it is procedural rule which provides such mechanism and was inserted on 22.1.2021 whereas
The right to appeal is a vested right that cannot be retroactively altered by subsequent amendments unless explicitly stated.
Appeal – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of amount awarded will not be applicable to complaints filed prior to commencement of 2019 Act.
Lack of payment of higher amount of pre-deposit - Statutory conditions requiring pre deposit to be made with respect to disputed demand of penalty (where a minimum 30% was required to be deposited an....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Securitisation Act, especially in recovery related matters.
The court ruled that appeals against procedural orders should not be subjected to deposit requirements under section 21 of the RDB Act, preserving natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
