Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1152 (MP)

Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State of M. P.

2015-11-05

A.M.KHANWILKAR, SANJAY YADAV

body2015
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to question the show-cause notice issued by the appropriate authority dated 29.11.2012. The said show-cause notice has been issued by the appropriate authority having noticed that the petitioner had engaged in unauthorized mining activity by excavating 2000 MT of Bauxite instead of permitted 200 MT. 2. The petitioner filed reply to the said show-cause notice. However, the inquiry initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been interdicted because of the interim direction issued by this Court while entertaining this petition. 3. The substantive relief claimed by the petitioner to restrain the respondent No.2, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baihar, District Balaghat from conducting any inquiry against the petitioner, in our opinion, is asking for a direction against the authority not to act in accordance with law. That relief cannot be countenanced. 4. Suffice it to observe that the matter is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer pursuant to the show cause notice dated 24.11.2012. We would, therefore, dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his defence before the Sub-Divisional Officer, as taken in the reply or any other material that the petitioner may like to rely in support of his defence. All questions in that behalf will have to be considered by the appropriate authority on its own merits in accordance with law. The petitioner through his counsel has assured to extend full cooperation to the appropriate authority for early disposal of the proceedings. 5. The petitioner shall appear in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer on 18.11.2015 at 11.00 a.m. when the Sub-Divisional Officer may proceed to hear the petitioner and also take on record any further documents to be relied by the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall then take a final decision in the matter not later than 31.12.2015; and communicate the same to the petitioner within the same time. All questions to be considered by the appropriate authority in the said proceedings are kept open. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, will be free to raise all issues as may be permissible in law by way of appropriate proceedings. 6. The petition is disposed of accordingly.