Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 26824 of 2021
(M/S ANANDESHWAR AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD. Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh, Advocate General with Shri Swapnil Ganguly,
Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/ State.
Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Kunal Thakre, Advocate for the proposed intervenor.
Pursuant to the interim order dated 06.12.2021, a request was made by the petitioner seeking from the State the amount due to be paid by them. Accordingly, the State put up a claim for a sum of around Rs.67 Crores from the petitioner. Thereafter, since the amounts were not paid to the State, a fresh NIT was called for and the intervenor was identified for allotment of the contract. Hence, he has filed Interlocutory Application No. 445 of 2020 seeking to be impleaded in these proceedings.
The respondents-State have filed an application being I.A. No. 29 of 2022 seeking to vacate the interim order on the ground that the demand made by the State as a consequence of the interim order dated 06.12.2021 has not been complied with by the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.467 of 2022 seeking to amend the writ petition to primarily include the prayer to, for a declaration that Rule 10(3) and 12(5) of the M.P. Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rules, 2019 has been ultra vires to Section 15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the consequential order to quash the recovery notice dated 14.12.2021 vide Annexure P/36 and 15.12.2021 vide Annexure P/37.
We have heard learned counsels on the same.
Signature Not On considering the reasons, prima facie we are of the view that the SAN Verified Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2022.01.13 17:15:56 IST 2 demand as raised by the State which is said to be faulty according to the petitioner could have been answered by him through their objection to the State. The objection to the quantum of amount and the period cannot be agitated before us for the first time. Secondly, so far as the dues are concerned, there is an amount of about Rs.19 Crores as a deposit with the State. Therefore, the amount due to the State is partly protected by this amount.
So far as the intervenor is concerned, he is a bonafide person who has bid for the lease as a pursuance to the invitation by the State. Therefore, in order to ensure that mining activities are not hindered, it is only just and appropriate that the intervenor be permitted to be proceeded with the excavation subject to the other permissions to be granted by the State. However, all actions by the intervenor would necessarily be subject to further orders of this Court.
So far as the application for amendment is concerned, we are of the view that the same requires to be allowed. It would not be necessary for him to file a fresh petition. Hence, the application is allowed. Petitioner to carry out the corrections and to file the amended writ petition within two weeks.
Further more, in view of the demand being made by the State and nonpayment by the petitioner, the petitioner apprehends that coercive action would be taken by the State for recovery of the amounts, for encashment of the bank guarantee and all related issues. The learned Advocate General submits that the earnest money deposit has been forfeited. Therefore, this order will apply for proceedings hereinafter. Since the writ petition has been admitted for consideration including the challenge to the relevant Rules, we deem it just and necessary that till the disposal of the petition, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner namely that the State be restrained from initiating any proceedings for recovery, encashment of bank guarantee or any issues of like nature against the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, I.A. No. 467 of 2022 seeking amendment Signature SAN Not Verified Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2022.01.13 17:15:56 IST 3 and I.A. No. 445 of 2020 seeking intervention are allowed. The intervenor is directed to be impleaded as respondent No.5.
I.A. No. 29 of 2022, seeking vacation of interim order is disposed off. Respondents are permitted to file the reply to the amended writ petition by the next date.
Post for hearing in usual course.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amitabh
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
AMITABH RANJAN
Date: 2022.01.13
17:15:56 IST