Gupta, CJ.--1. The challenge in the present bunch of petitions is to rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Rules”) as substituted on 18.5.2017.

2. On 18.7.2018, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench doubting the correctness of a Division Bench order of this Court passed on 25.4.2018 in Writ Petition No. 20686/2017 (Nihal Khan v. State of M.P.). The order dated 18.7.2018 reads as under :

“Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) as substituted on 18.5.2017 contemplates imposition of penalty in respect of illegal mining and transportation in a graded manner in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 53 of the Rules.

Sub-rule (2) of rule 53 of the Rules deals with forfeiture of minerals in cases of illegal extraction and transportation. It contemplates that the seÁed minerals shall not be discharged till the penalty as contemplated in sub-rule (1) is not paid. It is thus argued that the forfeiture will not follow, if the penalty in terms of sub-rule (1) is paid. Only in the event of failure to pay penalty in terms of sub-rule (1), the forfeiture can be affected in terms of sub-ru