Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.7721/2019
(Gopal Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & others)
- 1 -
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-04-2019
Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.3.2018 passed by the Collector terminating the petitioner's quarry lease and communication dated 27.3.2019 by which certain amount have been sought to be recovered. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to restrain the respondent from invoking/encashing the bank guarantee and to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Collector dated 16.3.2018 terminating the petitioner's quarry lease. The alleged appeal, Annexure P/18, dated 26.6.2018 has been filed in reference to a letter issued by the Collector dated 2.8.2017 and has not been filed against the order terminating the petitioner's quarry lease.
From the documents, it is apparent that though the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.7721/2019 (Gopal Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & others)
- 2 -
before the appellate authority, the petitioner has not done so. It is also clear from a perusal of document Annexure P/19 dated 27.3.2019 issued by the State Bank of India that the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner has already been encashed by overdrawing from his current account and that the petitioner has been directed by the Bank to repay the overdrawn amount within seven days.
In such circumstances, as the petitioner has a statutory efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order dated 16.3.2018 and as the respondents have already invoked and encashed the bank guarantee, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition at this stage.
The petition filed by the petitioner, being meritless, is accordingly dismissed.
(R. S. JHA) (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp.
Digitally signed by
PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2019.04.22
15:33:49 +05'30'