IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 45754 of 2025 M/S KAVITA STONE INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT.

KAVITA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jitendra Sharma Sr.Advocate with Ms. Kriti Sachdev - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. With consent, heard finally.

2. Present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :

"(i). That, in the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order Annexure P/1 to P/3 may kindly be set-aside being illegal, contrary to law and the matter may kindly be remanded back to the respondent No.3 with a direction to grant an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order in accordance with Rules

1996;

(ii). Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice;

(iii). Costs of this petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner;"

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule

53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 contemplates confiscation of vehicle used in illegal transportation of mineral, if the illegal transportation of mineral is caused fourth time repeatedly. It is further submitted that Collector, District Bhind passed impugned order without realizing that it was an alleged illegal transportation of mineral by vehicle second time and not exhausted the limit of three times. Therefore, prior to it if any auction is permitted, then it would cause illegality.

4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner informs that the vehicles which were used in alleged offence for the first time, second time or third time are being released by the concerned authority as per annexure P/7 collectively filed with the petition. Therefore, in the fitness of things, if the Collector considers this aspect on a conscious note, then, the petitioner is ready to appear before the Collector for fresh consideration.

5. After considering the relevant submissions and going through the impugned orders passed by Revenue Board on 19.09.2025 as well as by Director, Mining and Minerals vide order dated 06.09.2021 and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by Collector, District Bhind it appears that, this aspect raised by the petitioner before this court has never been addressed earlier before any of the authorities. The Collector has to ascertain whether, the offence alleged committed by the petitioner, was for the first time or less then four times or beyond four times. If the offence comes as less then four times, then the contentions as raised by the petitioner based upon Rule 53 of the M.P. Mining Mineral Rules, 1996, suitable orders be passed. Since Rule 53 was applicable at the relevant point of time therefore, application of Rule

53 (although deleted with effect from 7th April, 2022), is to be seen by the authorities over present petitioner and it's case and thereafter ensure passing of the appropriate orders. If it is found that the petitioner was first time offender, then vehicle be released forthwith so that the petitioner may use it and if it is found that the petitioner is offender beyond four times, then suitable proceedings shall be initiated.

6. Since the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication, the impugned orders passed by Revenue Board on 19.09.2025 as well as by Director, Mining and Minerals vide order dated 06.09.2021 and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by Collector, Distt. Bhind are being set-aside at present and if the petitioner is found offender of first or second time as projected by the petitioner, then, necessary consequential order shall be passed.

7. Looking to the fact that the point of long pendency of the case and decay of vehicle is involved, it is expected that the Collector shal