Can State Mining Rules Prescribe Higher Fine Than Parent MMDR Act? MP High Court To Examine

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice on a writ petition challenging Rule 18 of the MP Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, which permits the imposition of higher penalties than prescribed under the parent legislation- Section 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 

The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi observed:

"...a prima facie case is made out to challenge Rule 18 of the Rules, 2022". 

Taking note of the challenge, the court issued notice to the State.

The petitioner, owner of a vehicle, approached the court after his vehicle was seized and a penalty was imposed by the Indore Mining Branch for alleged illegal transportation of sand.

The plea stated that the petitioner was only transporting the sand to help one Jai Kumar Pal, who, with due permission, was transporting the sand but could not due to a technical default in his vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner, with the intention of helping, was transporting the sand.

The petition claimed that this fact was considered by the Mining Officer in his report. The report also recorded that the petitioner was illegally transporting 16 cubic meters of sand, and therefore the transporter ought to pay the penalty of 15x times the royalty amounting to ₹60,000 in addition to ₹2 Lakhs for causing environmental damage. The petitioner refused to compound the offence, and thus a case was instituted against him. 

The petition claimed that the Mining authority under Rule 18 of the 2022 Rules arbitrarily imposed a penalty of ₹5,22,000. The counsel for the petitioner argued that under the parent legislation, the MDMR Act, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is capped at ₹5 lakhs. Therefore, the application of Section 18 was "ultravires" as it violated its parent legislation. 

The counsel for the petitioner, while seeking the release of the seized vehicle, argued that the continued seizure of the vehicle would cause huge financial suffering to the petitioner. 

Opposing the plea, the State's counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy available under Rule 27 of the 2022 Rules, which governs appeals and revisions against the order of the Divisional Commissioner. 

The court observed that a prima facie case had been made out regarding the challenge to Rule 18 of the 2022 Rules.

Addressing the State's objections on availability of an alternative remedy, the court stated that since the impugned penalty order was passed under the challenged provision (Rule 18 of 2022 Rules), the appellate remedy available under the same Rules may not be an efficacious alternative. The bench directed:

"The vehicle is seized by the respondents for violation of the aforesaid provisions. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for interim relief is allowed. The Competent Authority shall release the vehicle to the petitioner after being satisfied with the ownership papers". 

The court further directed the petitioner to deposit ₹3 Lakhs towards the penalty amount and furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the approximate value of the vehicle. However, the bench also clarified that if the vehicle is found to be involved in any subsequent illegal mining activity, the competent authority would be entitled to seize it again. 

The case was listed along with WP 9040 of 2025 and WP 17586 of 2025 involving similar issues. 

Case Title: Vikas Kumar Pradhan v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-20323-2026

For Petitioner: Advocate Jayesh Gurnani 

For State: Additional Advocate General Nilesh Yadav with Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargava

Click here to read/download the Order