Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Entertain Illegal Mining Allegations Raised Without Locus Standi

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition alleging illegal sand mining and allotment of mining leases, observing that the petition was filed by a litigant who did not disclose his locus and it appeared that the plea was filed to settle personal scores with one individual. A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed; "According to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are firms engaged in illegal sand mining and are allegedly acting hand in glove with respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are government officials. It is further alleged that there is collusion between the mining officers and respondents Nos. 3, 7, and 8 to support the illegal mining activity. The petitioner claims that every year large quantities of sand are being excavated without payment of royalty and that sand mining is also carried out during the ban period, i.e., from 1st July to 3rd September. However, the petitioner has not disclosed his locus standi. It appears that the petitioner is targeting only one Mr. Kuldeep Gupta through the present writ petition"The bench further observed that there are competent statutory authorities to examine allegations of corruption and illegal mining and that the Mining Act and Rules constitutes a complete code under which the authorities are empowered to control illegal mining by imposing heavy penalties, seizing vehicles, and prosecuting the offenders.It thereafter said:"Therefore, such issues cannot be entertained in the present writ petition at the instance of a stranger. The writ petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to misuse the process of law to settle a personal score with Mr Gupta, or this appears to be a sponsored litigation". The petitioner had sought directions against Bhavya Mittal, former Collector of Burhanpur and presently serving in Khargone (respondent no 2), to initiate recovery proceedings against Bamdev Global(respondent 3), Panchali Infra (respondent 4) and Amol Enterprises (respondent 5). The petitioner also sought an inquiry into the alleged inaction of authorities regarding illegal mining activities and non-recovery of government dues. The petitioner also sought directions for a State-level inquiry into the issuance of royalty slips by Kuldeep Gupta who owns respondent 3 and 4 firms, despite the firms allegedly being blacklisted. The plea questioned that under what circumstances and in what capacity Kuldeep Gupta was involved in the allocation of tenders , excavation of sand and issuance of royalty slips and illegal mining on ghats, other then the 9 ghats which are earmarked for the mining of sand.According to the petitioner, Bamdev Global, Panchali Infra and Amol Enterprises were engaged in illegal sand mining in collusion with Mining Officer Shpak Malik and Government Officer Sachin Verma (respondents 6 and 7). It was further alleged that due to this collusion, large quantities of sand were excavated every year without payment of royalty, including during the prohibited mining period from July 1 to September 3, 2025. The court dismissed the PIL.Case Title: Virendra Patil v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP 47294 of 2025]For Petitioner: Advocate Abhinesh SoniFor State: Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet AwasthiClick here to read/download the Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Entertain Illegal Mining Allegations Raised Without Locus Standi

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags