A writ petition under Article 226 is generally not maintainable when an effective statutory appellate remedy exists. High Courts will not interfere unless the case involves a violation of fundamental rights, absence of natural justice, or jurisdictional error, as procedural grievances are reserved for the appellate authority.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 11.04.2022 and 13.04.2022, whereby the penalty of Rs.5,09,26,200/- has been imposed under Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1996").

02. The petitioners are owner of land bearing survey No.69/1 situated at village Kailodkartal which is adjacent to the Government land bearing survey No.271. On 19.06.2020 a joint survey was conducted by officers of Mining Department and police station-Tejaji Nagar. In respect of illegal mining, a panchnama was prepared, statement of witnesses were taken and the poclain machine and Dumper bearing registration No.MP09-HJ-2647 were seized on the ground of illegal mining activity on government land bearing survey No.271. Thereafter, an FIR bearing Crime No.278/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 353, 336 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention to Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 was also registered against the petitioners against the allegations of hinderance and disruption in discharging of official duty by the Government Officers. Later on, the petitioners were released on bail by an order dated 02.11.2020 passed by this Court.

03. The respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "MPLRC") against the petitioners alleging that they were found involved in illegal mining operation on government land. On the basis of the report submitted by the Mining Officer and other material, an order dated 07.11.2020 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.5,09,26,200/- on the petitioners under Rule 53 of Rules, 1996.

04. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid proceedings were drawn without issuing notice to them, an order of penalty has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing. The petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition challenging the order dated 07.11.2020. Vide order dated 02.02.2021, the writ petition was allowed and matter was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity. The petitioners were given notice for appearance on 15.02.2021. The petitioners appeared and filed the reply on 22.02.2021 stating that they were not the owner of the poclain machine and Dumper, their names do not find place in the panchnama, thus, on the basis of false allegations, the case has been registered against them. According to the petitioner, after filing reply, no date was given and after 1 year 2 months, the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 has been passed. None of the objections taken by the petitioners have been considered.

05. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that before passing the impugned order, no enquiry was conducted, the petitioners were not given the opportunity to lead evidence, the witnesses whose statements have been relied on were not brought before the Additional District Magistrate for deposition and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine them, therefore, matter is liable to be remanded back to the respondent.

06. Shri Vishwajit Joshi, learned Addnl. Advocate General for the respondent / State submits that the petitioners have wrongly filed the writ petition before this Court, the order passed by the Additional District magistrate under Rule 53 of Rules, 1996 is appealable before the Commissioner, thereafter there is a remedy of filing of second appeal before the State Government. Hence, the writ petition be dismissed and petitioners be directed to file an appeal.

07. Ms. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there are various ir