Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms Gwalior Stone Industry Registered ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
WRIT PETITION NO.39730/2025
M/s GWALIOR STONE INDUSTRY
VS.
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
&
WRIT PETITION NO.39726/2025
M/s GWALIOR STONE INDUSTRY
VS.
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri N.K. Gupta - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anurag
Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/ State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
{Delivered on 12th March, 2026} Per: Justice Anand Pathak,
1. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, both the petitions were heard analogously and decided by a common order. For convenient sake, facts of W.P. No.39730/2025 are taken into consideration.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(a) That, the order impugned Annexure P/1 dated 2 28.07.2025 passed by respondent no.1/State, P/2 dated
03.03.2025, 28/2/2025 passed by Director, mining and P/3 dated 05.09.2024 passed by Mining Officer, District Gwalior may kindly be quashed and the respondents be directed to extend the three months' time for execution of lease deed in favour of petitioner in compliance of order of grant dated 07.03.2024.
(b) That, the respondents be directed to intimate the petitioner that how much stamp duty and registration charges is to be paid and the petitioner will pay the stamp duty and registration charges within thirty days from the date of communication by the Sub Registrar or by the Mining Officer for the execution of the lease deed.
(c) pass such other or further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner/ firm is a registered partnership firm registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Petitioner/ firm is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.141 total area 18 hectare and in revenue record, petitioner/ firm is recorded as owner and possessor of the land in question.
4. Petitioner/ firm applied for grant of mining lease for extraction of 'quartz' and 'silica sand' for area ten hectare but the Director Mining who was the competent authority to decide the application has passed an order dated 28/07/2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby provisionally lease was ordered to be granted for area 09.400 hectare for thirty years and petitioner/ firm was directed to complete all the formalities for further execution of the lease deed. 3
5. Petitioner proceeded for completion of all formalities as required for execution of the mining lease and thereafter lease deed under Form no.27 Rule 21(2)(a) was executed on 15/09/2022 in favour of petitioner/firm. Petitioner/ firm completed all the formalities and a certificate dated 21/12/2022 verifying the fact that there is no objection for grant of lease by the Forest Department and Revenue Department was issued. Although, said certificate was not filed. Not only this, petitioner/ firm also applied for grant of certificate by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority known as "SEIAA" and SEIAA granted its permission on 21/03/2023.
6. The Mining Plan was also approved by the competent authority vide approved mining plan dated 20/12/2022. After completion of all the formalities, demarcation of the area was conducted by the Revenue Authority and report was submitted to the Mining Division and thereafter, possession of the area was handed over to the petitioner/firm on 23/12/2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 24/01/2023, petitioner/ firm was granted permission to extract the quartz and silica sand up to ten cubic meter and for that purpose, royalties was also issued to the petitioner. When petitioner started operating the mining, Director Mining passed an order dated 07/03/2024 for execution of lease deed in favour of petitioner/firm 4 for the period of thirty years and in the said order, it is mentioned that petitioner has to complete the formalities (though same has already been completed by the petitioner) within a period of three months, failing which, the order of grant was directed to be deemed to be revoked.
7. Immediately thereafter, the Code of Conduct for election was enforced from 16/03/2024 to 06/06/2024 and during this period, no ministerial/ administrative work was performed by the authorities despite regular insistence by the petitioner. However, vide order dated 05/09/2024, Mining Officer, District Gwalior informed to the petitioner/firm that grant order in favour of petitioner is being revoked. Although, petitioner has already submitted an application for information with regard to the payment of stamp duty and registration charges but nothing was considered and order dated 05/09/2024 (Annexure P/3) was passed.
8. Thereafter, petitioner submitted an appeal before the Director Mining and also submitted an application for extension of time as granted in the order of grant dated 07/03/2024, but the Director Mining passed an order dated 03/03/2025 dismissing the appeal. Thereafter, petitioner submitted second appeal before the State Government but met the same fate vide order dated 28/07/2025. Therefore, petitioner 5 has preferred the present petition.
9. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Code of Conduct was enforced from 16/03/2024 to 06/06/2024 and during this period, nothing was done by the authorities because of their engagement in the election. Authorities ignored the fact that after grant of permission, petitioner completed all the formalities. Infact, petitioner was permitted to operate the quarry lease and possession of the land in question was also handed over to the petitioner, however, same is denied later on by the impugned order Annexure P/1.
10. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to execute the lease deed and submit the stamp duty as directed by the Sub- Registrar but without adhering to the procedure, impugned order was passed, which is illegal.
11. It is further submitted that similarly situated persons were granted benefit by the Director mining vide orders dated 14/09/2021 and 12/03/2024 (Annexure P/21) and in case of petitioner, nothing has been done, therefore, it constitutes discrimination.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ State filed reply and opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. He submits that it is true that petitioner performed due diligence as contemplated under M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1996") 6 but during pendency of the appeal, the Government of India issued a notification dated 20th February, 2025 whereby the minor minerals 'quartz' and 'silica sand' were deleted from schedule V which has been framed under Rules, 1996. Meaning thereby, under grant of lease, power of Director Mining has been revoked and quartz and silica sand were included in Major Minerals and not remained Minor Minerals.
13. It is further submitted that 'silica sand' and 'quartz' both come within the schedule of Minor Mineral and therefore, petitioner was required to take permission from SEIAA and also mining plan was prepared in this regard, but all formalities were not completed by the petitioner within the stipulated period inspite of the fact that possession of property in question was already handed over to the petitioner on 24/01/2023 and petitioner was allowed to abstract mining minerals up to ten cubic meters. However, due formalities were to be completed under the provisions of Rule 6(a) and 18-A and (f) of the Rules, 1996. Petitioner had to execute the deed and deposit the amount on various heads alongwith stamp duty. Instead of execution of deed, an application for extension of time under Clause 26-A of the Rules, 1996 was made by the petitioner. Although, it is submitted that said letter dated 14/05/2024 of petitioner was never served in the 7 office of Collector, Mining and inward register suggest that aforesaid letter was never issued. Petitioner deposited the amount on 03/10/2024 after more than six months and tried to comply with the order. Since lease was granted with specific terms and conditions, therefore, said terms and conditions were required to be complied within a period of 18 months and since formalities were not completed within the stipulated period, therefore, permission was revoked vide impugned order.
14. It is further submitted that no reason has been assigned by the petitioner that after receiving the aforesaid letter dated 22/03/2024 what action has been taken by the petitioner for registration of lease deed.
15. Learned counsel further submits that one document (Annexure P/15), which was stated to be given was not available in the record. It appears that said documents were prepared to obtain the order dated 05/09/2024 (Annexure P/3). Though information for revocation was not required and it was already mentioned in Annexure P/3 and P/13 inspite of that, petitioner obtained order Annexure P/3 and thereafter, appeal was preferred.
16. It is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that ground taken by the petitioner regarding Code of Conduct due to Lok 8 Sabha Election is mis-concieved because in the earlier appeal which was preferred before the Director Mining, said ground was not raised by the petitioner and since lease was already sanctioned in the year 2022 with specific terms and conditions to complete the formalities of SIEAA and Forest etc., but petitioner failed to complete the formalities within stipulated period i.e. 18 months (Annexure P/6), therefore, action taken by the authority is proper. In fact, Director Mining accepted the formalities and granted sanction vide order dated 07/03/2024 with a stipulated condition regarding completion of remaining formalities i.e. registration of lease within three months from the date of order, however, petitioner could not complete the formalities within stipulated period rather filed application for extension of time. Lease could have been executed even under the Code of Conduct was prevailing because lease has already been sanctioned prior to implementation of Code of Conduct.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State further submits that by way of amendment in the Mining and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as "Act, 1957"). The aforesaid minor minerals i.e. Quartz and Silica Sand have became Major Minerals and the State Government even cannot grant the lease of said major minerals after aforesaid amendment. Hence, he 9 prayed for dismissal of the petition.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
19. In the present case, it appears from the impugned order dated 28/07/2025 (Annexure P/1) that initially Incharge Mining Officer Mining Branch, District-Gwalior passed the impugned order dated 05/09/2024 (Annexure P/3) on the ground that petitioner has not completed due formalities regarding agreement, therefore, as per Rule 26 of the Rules, 1996, lease was revoked. However, Director Mining vide impugned order dated 03/03/2025 declined to extend the period for execution of lease deed. So far as State Government is concerned, this fact came to the knowledge vide impugned order that earlier as per notification dated 10/02/2015, 'Quartz' and 'Silica Sand' were declared as Minor Mineral. Central Government taking into consideration the provisions of Rules, 1996 held 'Quartz' as 'Minor Mineral' under entry 25 and 'Silica Sand' under entry 29 of Schedule V. However, vide Gazette Notification dated 20 th February, 2025, Central Government exercising power of Section 3 of the Act, 1957 amended the notification issued earlier on 10 th February, 2015 in which Quartz entry No.25 got deleted. However, fate of Silica Sand is not mentioned in the said Gazette Notification. In the said notification, 'Quartz' was included in the Major Mineral, but so far as 10 'Silica Sand' is concerned, picture is still hazy and not clear. Therefore, in the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, execution of lease deed so far as 'Quartz' is concerned is not tangible and therefore, plea of petitioner regarding Quartz is rejected.
20. However, so far as plea regarding 'Silica Sand' is concerned, matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to consider the fact that whether lease deed for Quartz and Silica Sand was required to the executed together or whether in view of the Gazette Notification dated 20th February, 2025 where Silica Sand is not ousted from the purview of minor mineral, lease deed is required to be executed seperately. Although, in reply, respondents have specifically submitted that Silica Sand is also declared as Major Mineral, therefore, the State Government is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of Silica Sand.
21. Indeed, delay in execution of lease deed is against petitioner but whether the delay is attributable to the respondents may also be seen by the State Government and if it is found that delay was attributable over the State Government then same shall be considered in accordance with law. Whether Silica Sand is also deleted from the list of Minor Mineral is also to be verified by the appellate authority before passing any order. Therefore, order dated 28/07/2025 and 11 29/07/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Government so far as Silica Sand is concerned is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication to State Govt. on the basis of discussion made above and facts and circumstances of the case.
22. Both the petitions Writ Petition No .39730/2025 and Writ Petition No.39726/2025 stand disposed of with aforesaid directions.
23. Copy of this order be kept in the file of W.P. No.39726/2025.
Ordered accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
vc JUDGE JUDGE
VARSHA Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf20e67d11 CHATURVED d7f91045d81139f6792fbd4ae91f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID -
7065094, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=652fe82bc5cae8153a1e34c3b8efc0 I 95f5a0d144b089415f31342d1c8e2d3139, cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2026.03.13 10:50:57 +05'30'