RAVI MOHAN TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 8.8.2013 (Annexure P/10). By this order, the respondent No. 2 has penalised the petitioner under Madhya Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called as "2006 Rules ) directing to deposit Rs. 263,18,76,000/ -.

(2.) Criticizing the said order, Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner was given licence on 4.1.2012 (Annexure P/4) which is valid up to 3.1.2017. The petitioners licence gives him authority for the purpose of transporting, storing and trading mineral or its products. He further submits that the petitioner has done it in accordance with rules. It is contended that a show cause notice dated 16.7.2013 (Annexure P/5) was issued and petitioner filed his detailed reply. He submits that the Collector without considering his reply passed the impugned order (Annexure P/10). His contentions raised in the reply are not dealt with. No spot inspection was done. The Collector exercised power of compounding under 2006 Rules, which was not permissible inasmuch as there was no admission of guilt by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exercise of power by Collector in impugned order is not in consonance with the enabling provision of 2006 Rules and, therefore, this petition may be directly entertained despite availability of statutory alternative remedy under rule 19 of 2006 Rules. Pleadings in this regard are made in para 3 of the writ petition. It is contended that in cases of violation of principle of natural justice, the petition can be directly entertained. Reliance is also placed on the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1320/2011 dated 21.3.2012, wherein the Division Bench has interpreted rule 18 of 2006 Rules.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.