Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 411 (MP)

Raghvendra Singh Sikarvaar v. State of M. P.

2024-05-09

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, VIVEK RUSIA

body2024
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 18.1.2021, 19.12.2022 and 13.3./2024 passed by the respondents. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under:- The petitioner was granted a lease for the period of 10 years for the purpose of installation of Crusher and excavation of stone for the period 17.1.2017 to 16.1.2027. The area of the land is 2.160 hectares of Survey No. 337 situated in Village Hathlai, Tahsil Badauni, District Datia. According to the petitioner, Collector Datia issued a letter dated 31.7.2017 to the Tahsildar for conducting the process of demarcation of the aforesaid land. The Tahsildar initiated the proceedings but no demarcation was carried out. As such, the petitioner could not start the mining activities. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the entire country from 25th March 2019. The petitioner was served with the notice dated 12.2.2020 by the Mining Officer demanding dead rent for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 of Rs.4,80,000/-. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner. Vide order dated 18.1.2021, Collector Datia has cancelled the lease and also imposed a penalty of dead rent of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, of Geology and Mining. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2022. Thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 60(1) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules of 1996") before the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which has been dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2024 due to non-deposit of 10% of total recovery amount. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay 10% of the amount of recovery as there was no provision in the Rules of 1996. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that a new amendment in Rule 60(5) of the Rules of 1996 was introduced vide gazette notification dated 22.1.2021, whereas the impugned order against which appeal was filed was passed on 18.1.2021. Therefore, the amendment brought in Rule 60(5) is prospective in nature and the State Government has wrongly dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that a new amendment in Rule 60(5) of the Rules of 1996 was introduced vide gazette notification dated 22.1.2021, whereas the impugned order against which appeal was filed was passed on 18.1.2021. Therefore, the amendment brought in Rule 60(5) is prospective in nature and the State Government has wrongly dismissed the appeal. In support of his contention, Shri Shashank Sharma, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by apex Court in the case of ECGC Ltd. v. Mokul Shriram (Civil Appeal 1842 of 2021) and the order dated 13.2.2023 passed in the case of M/s Bhartiya Constructions v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal 1062-63/2023) 4. Shri Khedkar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State is not disputing the aforesaid proposition of law that the amendment brought by way of Rule 60(5) in the Rules of 1996 is prospective and will not apply in the case of petitioner as he preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 18.1.2021 that was issued prior to the date of gazette notification dated 22.1.2021. The order passed in the case of Bharti Constructions (Supra) is reproduced below: "1 Leave granted 2 While issuing notice on 21 November 2022, the submissions which were urged on behalf of the appellant were summarized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order, which read as follows: "1 Mr. P S Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that though the appeal which was filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules 1996 is liable to be transferred under the repeal and savings provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules of 2022, the requirement of pre-deposit contained in the third proviso to Rule 27(1) will have no application 2 The senior counsel further submits that when the appeal was filed under the old Rules, there was no requirement of pre-deposit and such a condition has been brought into ef ect for the first time when the new Rules of 2022 have been issued" 3 On 12 December 2022, this Court stayed the requirement of pre-deposit of 10% under the Madhya Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022. 4 The appeal in the present case was filed on 12 November 2019. The new Rules of 2022 came into force on 19 July 2022. 4 The appeal in the present case was filed on 12 November 2019. The new Rules of 2022 came into force on 19 July 2022. In the circumstances, the appeal which has been instituted by the appellant shall be disposed of without insisting on the requirement of pre-deposit of 10%. The orders of the High Court dated 7 September 2022 and 28 September 2022 shall accordingly stand set aside and be substituted by the above directions. 5 The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 6 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of." 5. In view of the aforesaid verdict of the Apex Court, the impugned order dated 13.3.2024 (Annexure P/3) is set aside. The appeal is remitted back to the Under Secretary, Department of Mining to decide the appeal without insisting on a deposit of 10% of the fine amount. The writ petition is partly allowed.