Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 R.P.No. 685/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
SHEEL NAGU & ANAND PATHAK, JJ.
( Review Petition No. 685/2021 )
Jitendra Sharma
Versus
State of M.P. & Anr.
==============================================
Shri Chetan Kanoongo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondents/State.
==============================================
ORDER
(Passed on this (1st) Day of December, 2021) Anand Pathak, J.
1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner for review/recalling/modification of order dated 13/7/2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 11755/2021; whereby, writ petition preferred by petitioner against the order dated 25/6/2021 passed by Collector, Shivpuri got dismissed on the point of availability of alternative remedy.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that JCB Machine of petitioner bearing number MP09GG4731 has been seized by the officers of respondent No. 2 on 23/10/2020 on allegation of 2 R.P.No. 685/2021 having storage of Murram (Red Soil) over the land in question as referred in impugned order of Collector and as per Rule 18 (1) and 18 (5) of M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (for short "Rules of 2006") and found quantity of Murram 720 cubic meters @ of royalty of worth Rs. 36,000/- and therefore, imposed 20 times penalty over said royalty totaling thus Rs. 7,20,000/- on petitioner and two other persons.
3. Petitioner challenging the said order dated 25/6/2021 directly approached this Court and vide order dated 13/7/2021, this Court relegated the petitioner to prefer appeal / revision under Rule 19 and 20 of Rules of 2006 because disputed question of facts was available in the controversy.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 18 of Rules of 2006 has been considered by this Court earlier in the case of Rajeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A.No. 1320/2011 decided on 21/3/2012) and submits that Collector had no jurisdiction to compound the offence and petitioner cannot be compelled to compound the offence. On the question of jurisdiction of Collector, the review petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that once petitioner disputes the factum of storage of Murram and since the very facts of storage is disputed then it was apposite to relegate the petitioner to appellate jurisdiction. He prayed for dismissal of the petitioner.
6. Heard.
3 R.P.No. 685/2021
7. It is settled in law that scope of review is very limited. Under the garb of review jurisdiction, petitioner cannot be allowed to raise all the arguments as if in appeal. Since the disputed questions already existed in the case in hand, therefore, petitioner was relegated to the appellate jurisdiction against the order passed by the Collector on 25/6/2021. Rule 19 and 20 of Rules of 2006 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"19.Appeal.-(1)Any person aggrieved [by order passed under these rules], may, within sixty days of the date of communication of the order to him/her, appeal to the Divisional Commission in Form-13. The appellant shall deposit a fee of Rs. One Thousand only in the same manner as prescribed in Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 7 and attach the original treasury challan along with Form-13;
Provided that if the appellant is a member of Scheduled Tribe / Scheduled Caste / Other Backward Class, he / she shall deposit a fee of Rs. One Hundred only in the same manner, as prescribed in Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 7 and attach the original treasury challan along with Form-13;
Provided further that any such appeal may be entertained by the Appellate Authority after the said period, if the Appellant satisfied him/her that he/.she has sufficient reason for not filing the application in time.
(2) Where an application for appeal is made under these rules, the Appellate Authority may confirm, modify or set outside the order passed [under these rules] or pass such other order in relation thereto, 4 R.P.No. 685/2021 as it may deem just and proper;
Provided that no order shall be passed against any person interested, unless he/she has been given an opportunity to represent his/her case; Provided further that the Appellate Authority may at any time direct that the execution of the order appealed against be stayed for such time, as it may deem fit.
20. Revision.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed in an appeal under these rules, may file an application for revision before the State Government within sixty days of the date of communication of the order in Form-13. The revisioner shall deposit a fee of Rs. One Thousand only in the same manner, as prescribed in Clause
(a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 7 and attach the original treasury challan along with Form-13;
Provided that if the revisioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe / Scheduled Caste / Other Backward Class, he / she shall deposit a fee of Rs. One Hundred only in the same manner, as prescribed in Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 7 and attach the original treasury challan along with Form-13;
Provided further that any such application for revision may be entertained by the Revisional Authority after the said period, if the revisioner satisfied him/her that he/.she has sufficient reason for not filing the application for revision in time; (2) Where an applciation for revision is made under these rules, the Revisional Authority may confirm, modify or set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority or pass such other order in relation thereto, as it may deem just and proper; 5 R.P.No. 685/2021
Provided that no order shall be passed against any person interested, unless he/she has been given an opportunity to represent his/her case; Provided further that the Revisional Authority may at any time direct that the execution of the order passed by the Appellate Authority be stayed for such time, as it may deem fit."
8. Looking to the fact situation and submissions so advanced, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to move in appeal in accordance with law and raise all the point as raised before this Court and same shall be taken note of by the Appellate Authority as per law and appeal shall be decided by passing a reasoned order under due intimation to the petitioner. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and cannot be invoked when alternative remedy is available.
9. No new ground has been raised by the petitioner except reiteration of earlier ones. Review petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
jps/-
JAI
Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, PRAKASH st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c763 3f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB21937 80D8357, SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C 01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2021.12.01 17:04:56 +05'30'