Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Passed on 02 September, 2014)

1. This instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 30.04.2010 contained in Annexure P/10 passed by Collector Morena levying fine/penalty Rs.2,79,400/- (ten times the amount of royalty) by invoking the provisions of Section 247 (7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("MPLRC" for brevity).

2. The challenge is further made to the appellate order passed under Section 44 of MPLRC by the Additional Collector, Chambal Division contained in Annexure P/11 dated 30.09.2010 upholding the order of Collector Morena.

3. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds in support of challenge to the order of penalty, but the learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer to the ground of impugned order of penalty being passed beyond jurisdiction vested in the Collector u/S.247 (7) of MPLRC.

4. Short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that a show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2009 Annexure P/8 for illegal mining of 635 cubic-metre stone over Survey Number 1681, valued at Rs.95,250/-, thereby alleging violation of the provision of Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (for brevity "Rules of 1996"), calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why an amount of Rs.2,79,400/- (10 times the rate of royalty) be not imposed as penalty under the provision of the Rules of 1996.

5. On submitting reply to above said show cause notice Annexure P/9, the impugned order Annexure P/10 has been passed. The impugned order holds the petitioner liable to penalty for violation of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, but the Collector Morena while imposing the penalty, at the rate of 10 times the rate of royalty, invoked the provisions of Section 247 (7) of MPLRC. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that despite invoking the provisions of Section 53 of the Rules of 1996, while issuing show cause notice Annexure P/8, the Collector for reasons best known to him passed the impugned order invoking Section 247 (7) of MPLRC. It is accordingly submitted that the Collector was obliged to impose penalty under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 and not u/S. 247 (7) of MPLRC.

6. Learned counsel for State defending the impugned order states that the petitioner having indulged in illegal mining was liable to be levied and recovered the penalty and, therefore supports passing of the impugned order.

7. On hearing contentions of the rival parties, it is essential to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions of Rule 53 (1) of the Rules of 1996 and S. 247 (7) of MPLRC,hence they are reproduced here-in-below for convenience and ready reference:-

"53. Penalty for un-authorized extraction and transportation.-