NAVEEN DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of the order dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure-P-6) passed by the respondent no.2 Collector District Burhanpur, in revenue case No.10-A/67/11-12, whereby under Rule 53 (5) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 (hereinafter in short 'the Rules of 1996), the penalty of Rs. 8,64,000.00 has been imposed on the petitioner on account of Transportation of Minerals without any license or permission of the licensing authority. In addition to it, the prayer to hold that the Collector has no jurisdiction under Rule 53 of the aforesaid Rules 1996 to impose such penalty is also made.

(2.) HAVING heard on the question of admission, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order Annexure-P-6.

(3.) IN view of the dictum of the apex Court, I am of the considered view that since the alternate forum of appeal to challenge the impugned order Annexure-P-6, is available to the petitioner thus by ignoring such alternate forum of appeal, this petition could neither be entertained nor adjudicated on merits hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is hereby dismissed only on the aforesaid technical ground of entertainability but by extending a liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority under Rule 57 of the aforesaid Rules 1996. It is further observed that on filing the appropriate application along with the appeal, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the exclusion of the period in limitation which has been spent by him in prosecuting the present petition.