'Unfortunate': MP High Court Laments IAS Officer Blindly Passing Order In Illegal Mining Case Without Verifying Facts, Imposes Costs
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a penalty order passed by the Chhindwara Collector, holding that the authority acted mechanically by blindly accepting the Mining Officer's report without verifying the underlying facts, thereby wrongly fastening the liability on an unrelated person. The division bench of Justice Viviek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed; "The petitioner has...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a penalty order passed by the Chhindwara Collector, holding that the authority acted mechanically by blindly accepting the Mining Officer's report without verifying the underlying facts, thereby wrongly fastening the liability on an unrelated person.
The division bench of Justice Viviek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed;
"The petitioner has been wrongly treated as the owner of the vehicle, and the liability has been fastened upon him. The entire exercise appears to have been carried out in a very mechanical and careless manner. The Collector was required to examine the matter before passing the order as to whether the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle or not, and whether any action had been taken against the actual registered owner. It is very unfortunate that the Collector, being a senior IAS officer, did not care to examine the facts of the case and blindly accepted the report submitted by a subordinate mining officer".
A writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Chhindwara Collector under Rule 23 of the MP Minerals (Illegal Excavation, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, imposing a penalty.
According to the facts, the Revenue Office apprehended a truck illegally transporting materials without statutory authorisation or required documentation. A panchnama was prepared, along with a final report by the Mining Inspector, and the documents were submitted to the Collector for prosecution.
Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice and filed a reply stating that he was not the owner of the truck. The reply by the petitioner was not considered, and a direction was passed to forfeit the truck on January 27, 2025.
The court noted that the Mining Officer did not make any efforts to find the owner of the truck and record his statements, and rather relied on the statement of the truck driver, Rajesh. The court noted that the petitioner was wrongly treated as the owner of the vehicle and the liability was fastened upon him.
Terming the exercise as having been carried out in a 'very mechanical and careless manner', the court observed that the Collector ought to have examined the matter before passing the order. The bench further expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of a Serious IAS officer who blindly accepted the report without due diligence on his part.
Thus, the bench set aside the impugned order and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents to be recovered from the erring officers.
Case Title: Sarang Raghuwanshi v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-11018-2025
For Petitioner: Advocate Shoeb Hasan Khan
For State: Additional Advocate General Janhavi Pandit