SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 43657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
M/S Dhanlaxmi Merchandise Pvt. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 13901/2023



Advocates:
Shoeb Hasan Khan,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN WRIT PETITION No. 25052 of 2022 VISTA SALES PVT. LTD. BEING REPRESENTED Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION No. 24733 of 2022 SHISHIR KHANDAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 25725 of 2022 R.K TRANSPORT AND CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 26085 of 2022 RSI STONE WORLD PVT. LTD.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 26087 of 2022 SAINIK INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 26245 of 2022 UJJAWAL CHAUHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 27268 of 2022 K.G. DEVELOPERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 27304 of 2022 M/S VANSHIKA CONSTRUCTIONS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 27310 of 2022 M/S ASHTVAKRA IT SOLUTION LTD Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 28596 of 2022 M/S RAJESH PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 28767 of 2022 POWERMESH PROJECTS LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT PETITION No. 13901 of 2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER M/S DHANLAXMI MERCHANDISE PVT.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Naman Nagrath – Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shoeb Hasan Khan, Shri Shreyash Dharmadhikari, Shri Teerath Bharliya, Shri Siddharth Sharma and Shri Shekhar Sharma – Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Prashant Singh – Advocate General with Shri Amit Seth – Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.

Shri Anvesh Shrivastava – Advocate for respondent – M.P. State Mining Corporation.

Shri Sahil Sonkusale - Advocate for the respondents in respective petitions.

….....................................................................................................................................

Reserved on - 19.11.2024 Pronounced on - 11.12.2024 ….....................................................................................................................................

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice:

1. The facts and issues involved in the present petitions are same and similar, therefore, present petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The facts and annexures shall be discussed with reference to Writ Petition No.25052 of 2022, however, facts of other petitions shall not be repeated for the sake of brevity being similar.

2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ/orders/directions more particularly in the nature of certiorari quashing the order no.sand/Katni/2022/399 dated 13.10.2022 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER respondent No.4 purportedly in terms of Rules, 10(4) and amended Rule 27 of Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rules, 2019 being without competence and non-reasoned and a non-speaking order with total non-application of mind and therefore is manifestly arbitrary as being violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

(ii) To hold that the action of respondents in demanding extra amount in an ongoing tender that was accepted pursuant to acceptance of highest bid of petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.

(iii) To issue a writ/order/directions more particularly in the nature of mandamus to hold that the impugned demand even if is on account of increase royalty is illegal as the petitioner is already depositing such higher royalty of @ 401 Cub Mtr to the Respondents pursuant to bid and highest royalty offered by the petitioner vide bid invited for this purpose;

(iv) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top