SANTOSH SHIVHARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in present petition is as to whether it was within the competence of Collector, Shivpuri (M.P.) in purported exercise of power under sub-rule (5) of Rule 18 of Madhya Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 to have imposed penalty in respect of unauthorized collection of sand.

(2.) As submitted by learned counsel for the parties, the issue is squarely covered decision of Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.1320/2011 (Rajeev Agrawal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 21.03.2012, wherein while adverting to the fact similar to the present case, it is observed:

(3.) Since the submission of appellant is that he is not inclined to compound the offence and pay the penalty imposed by the Collector, it is expected that the latter will immediately (preferably within a week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order) make a report to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. The appellant then can file an application under sub-rule (4) before the concerned Magistrate for releasing the property seized and on such application being filed, the Magistrate will decide the same on its merit. Needless to mention that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the offence allegedly committed by the appellant and the Magistrate will be free to decide the proceedings in accordance with law.