Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 680 (MP)

Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-06-10

AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. - Petitioner challenges the communication No.1950/865/ 2020/12/1 dated 26.05.2020 issued by Department of Mineral Resources, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, addressed to Collectors of all Districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner also seeks direction to permit him to sell 1620 MTs sand stored over a land bearing Khasra No.297/2 admeasuring 1.619 hectare situated at Village Tala Gram Panchayat Badkhera Tahsil Chandia District Umaria (M.P.). And, to permit him to store and trade of minor mineral as per licence dated 05.10.2018, issued by the Competent Authority for a period of 5 years. The petitioner also seeks cost of petition amounting Rs.5 lakhs. 2. Evidently, the impugned communication is in furtherance to the Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019 (for short "Rules of 2019"), framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 and Section 23C read with Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 vide Notification No.F 19-2/2019/XII-1 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 30.08.2019. 3. With the advent of Rules of 2019, the provisions relating to mineral sand contained in Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, Madhya Pradesh (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 and Madhya Pradesh Sand Rule, 2018 stood repealed to the extent where it does not transgress the Rules of 2019. 4. That, Rule 18 of Rules of 2019 makes provisions regarding jurisdiction of the Collector for special permission for disposal of quantity upto 1.00 lakh cubic meter sand stored legally. It is in order to regulate the same, the State Government issued the impugned guidelines which is reproduced for ready reference : 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that having being granted licence for sand mining, transportation, storage and trading under the Rules of 2018 on 05.10.2018 and ID Password given on 06.02.2019 for purchasing the sand, in pursuance whereof, having stored 1630 MTs, the petitioner is not allowed to transport and sell the same because of the stoppage of ID password in June, 2019. It is urged that through the petitioner was subjected to show cause notice on 19.07.2019 as regard to less quantity of 51.04 MTs (1671.04 MTs shown online 1620 MTs found on the spot on physical verification); however, since no action has been taken thereon and vide letter No.1420/[kfut/2019, Umaria dated 13.09.2019, the petitioner being called upon to obtain ETP from M.P. Pollution Control Board. Abiding by the same, the petitioner having obtained the consent of Pollution Control Board on 21.10.2019 with its validity till 22.11.2019. It is urged that despite all formalities, the petitioner has not been granted the permission to sell the sand duly stored over his land. The petitioner, it is contended, apprehends the confiscation of sand in terms of the impugned communication. 6. It is in the wake of these facts, the petitioner seeks following reliefs : (1) To quash Annexure P/1 dated 26.05.2020 in so far as it concerns the petitioner; (2) To order the respondents to permit the petitioner to sell his sand (1620 MTs) which petitioner has purchased as per his licence Annexure P/3 for which appropriate permission and user id and password may be ordered to be given to the petitioner by the respondents; (3) To order the respondents to continue the licence of the petitioner Annexure P/3 for a period of 5 years invoking its powers under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2019 (P/2); (4) To direct the respondents to pay costs to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs; and (5) To pass such other order as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. 7. As to Relief No.3, whereby the petitioner seeks continuation of the licence issued on 05.10.2018, the same cannot be granted in view of the stipulations contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Rules of 2019 which stipulates : 18. Storage of mineral sand.- (1) All the License granted for storage of sand prior to the commencement of these rules shall be deemed to be cancelled from the date of publication of this notification. The permission for disposal of sand validly stored shall be given. The licensee shall furnish details of quantity of mineral stored on storage place to the Collector within a period of 7 days from the date of notification. ....." 8. The permission for disposal of sand validly stored shall be given. The licensee shall furnish details of quantity of mineral stored on storage place to the Collector within a period of 7 days from the date of notification. ....." 8. In view whereof, since the licence issued on 05.10.2018 stands cancelled w.e.f. 30.08.2019, the date on which the Rules of 2019 have come into existence, the direction to continue the licence cannot be granted. 9. As to quashment of impugned communication dated 26.05.2020 as adverted supra, the same is in consonance with stipulations contained in Rule 18 of Rules of 2019 calling upon the Collectors to act in accordance with the Rules. As we are not commended to any order passed by the Collector in furtherance to the provisions contained in the Rules of 2019, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition is premature as there is no cause of action for the present. In case if the petitioner is visited with an order or an action on the part of the Collector under Rule 18 of Rules of 2019, the petitioner has a remedy under Rule 22 of Rules of 2019 which stipulates that "Any person aggrieved by an order passed under the Rules of 2019 by the Collector, may within sixty days of the date of communication of the order to him/her, may file appeal to Divisional Commissioner in Form-IX as per the procedure prescribed therein". 10. In view whereof, we do not perceive any illegality in the impugned communication issued by the Department of Mineral Resources, Govt. of M.P. 11. As regard to relief for direction to permit the petitioner to sell his sand, it is observed from sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Rules of 2019 that incumbent it was upon the petitioner to have furnished details of quantity of mineral stored on storage place to the Collector within a period of 7 days from the date of notification i.e. from 30.08.2019. We are not apprised of any such details of quantity of mineral stored as being furnished by the petitioner to the Collector within 7 days, as would create a right in favour of the petitioner to seek a mandamus qua the sand which is stored over the land belonging to the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has been subjected to show cause notice and though the petitioner states that the show cause notice culminated in his favour; however, there is no express order brought on record recording the dropping of proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Be that as it may. The Authorities would be at liberty to conclude the proceedings, if not concluded as yet, initiated with the issuance of show cause notice dated 19.07.2019. 12. As to the claim for cost of petition, since we are not inclined to cause any indulgence in the matter for the reasons above, we are not inclined to grant any cost. 13. Since no relief can be granted, the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.