ORDER 1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Panna on 14.2.2013, and the order in appeal passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division on 16.2.2018, whereby the penalty imposed in terms of rule 18(5) of the MP Minerals (Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for short the ‘Rules’) of Rs. 4,24,000/-, was not interfered with. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10405/2016 (Rajjan Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 19.7.2016, to contend that in terms of rule 18(5), the Collector is only authorized to compound the offence punishable under sub-rule (1) provided the person agrees for the compounding of the offence. In case the person refuses to compound the offence, the only option left to the Collector is to initiate proceedings for an offence said to be committed under rule 18. 3. Shri Amit Seth is not able to raise any meaningful argument to controvert the argument raised by the petitioner that in proceedings under rule 18, the default can be compounded, which necessarily means with the consent of the party. If the offender is not agreeing for compounding, the Collector can send the offender for prosecution, but cannot pass any order to impose penalty. 4. In view of the said fact, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer exercising powers of Collector and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 16.2.2018 are set aside. It is open to the competent authority to consider as to whether to initiate proceedings by filing a complaint in accordance with the Rules.