Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition seeking interim relief for the release of the seized vehicle in an illegal mining case, the petitioners who challenged Rule 18, Madhya Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022 (M.P. Mineral Rules) on the ground of it being ultra vires to the parent Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Mines and Minerals Act), were granted interim relief by a Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, JJ., directing the competent authority to release the vehicle on few conditions and issued notice to the respondents in case of challenge made to Rule 18.
Background
An order was passed imposing punishment of fine of ₹5,22,000 under Rule 18, M.P. Mineral Rules, against the petitioner and his vehicle which was seized by the respondents for violation of Section 4, Mines and Minerals Act, under Rule 18, M.P. Mineral Rules. Vehicle’s approximate value was ₹20 lakhs and since it was used for commercial purposes, the seizure was causing huge financial losses to the petitioner.
The petitioner prayed to direct the respondents to release the seized vehicle as the Rule 18, under which the seizure was made, was claimed to be ultra vires to the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act by the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the vires on the ground that the aforesaid provision prescribes fine more than the amount of fine prescribed under the provisions of Section 21(2), Mines and Minerals Act, the parent Central Act, which is ₹5,00,000.
Opposing the prayer, the respondents contended that there is an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under Rule 27 M.P. Mineral Rules against the impugned order.
Analysis
On observing this, the Court issued notice to respondents.
The Court noted that a prima facie case was made out and since the impugned order was passed under the Rule challenged, the remedy of appeal would not be an efficacious remedy of appeal in the present case.
Therefore, the Court allowed the prayer for interim relief and directed the competent authority to release the vehicle to the petitioner after being satisfied with the ownership papers, on following conditions, the petitioner —
-
Will deposit ₹3 lakhs towards penalty and furnish a solvent surety of the approximate value of the respective vehicle,
-
Shall furnish un undertaking that they will not alienate the vehicle and will keep it in the same condition in which it be handed over to the petitioner,
-
Shall furnish an undertaking that he will produce the vehicle before the competent authority as and when directed by this Court,
-
If the vehicle is found to be involved in another illegal mining, the competent authority shall be entitled to seize the respective vehicle again, and
-
The release and the deposition of the penalty amount shall be subject to final outcome of the petition.
Also Read: SC Declares R. 55a(I) Of Registration Rules As Ultra Vires For Being Inconsistent With Provisions Of Registration Act, 1908
[Vikas Kumar Pradhan v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine MP 17719, decided on 22-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Jayesh Gurnani
For Respondent: Nilesh Yadav, Sudeep Bhargava
