M/S Pacific Export vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
1 WP-43111-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43111 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010765622026
M/S PACIFIC EXPORT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri Kabeer Paul,
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain G.A. for the State.
Shri Ankit Saxena and Shri Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocates for
intervenors.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of the
proceedings initiated pursuant to the communications dated 10.11.2025
(Annexure P-7), 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-9), and 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-
11), issued under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “MMDR Act, 1957”),
directing the deposit of alleged outstanding dues calculated by a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
2 WP-43111-2026
Government-constituted investigation team in respect of the iron ore mining

lease granted over Khasra No. 412 (Forest) and Khasra No. 426 (Revenue),
admeasuring a total area of 27.050 hectares, situated at Village Jheethee,
Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The petitioner, Pacific Exports, operates an open-cast iron ore and
laterite mine situated at Village Jhiti, Tehsil Sihora, District Jabalpur, over an
area of approximately 27.05 hectares. The mining lease was granted on
10.08.2010 and executed on 18.08.2010 for a period of 30 years. The
petitioner submits that it has been carrying out mining operations after
obtaining the requisite permissions and paying royalty and other applicable
dues.
3. The petitioner contends that, in W.P. No. 18922/2011, this Court,
vide interim order dated 17.05.2012, permitted the transportation of already
extracted minerals and overburden upon payment of royalty. The authorities
also issued no-dues certificates, and the Government Advocate, vide opinion
dated 30.01.2013, opined that the issuance of transit passes pursuant to the
Court’s order was not illegal.
4. The petitioner submits that, pursuant to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India, dated 02.08.2017, the
State Government, vide order dated 23.04.2025, constituted an enquiry
committee to examine mining activities for the period 2004–2017 without
affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the
respondent Collector issued a show-cause notice dated 10.11.2025, alleging
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
3 WP-43111-2026
excess extraction of 10,89,860 metric tonnes of iron ore and proposing

recovery of approximately Rs.81.73 crore. The petitioner alleges that the
demand was based on an enquiry report dated 06.06.2025, which was
prepared without notice, physical inspection or disclosure of the underlying
records and methodology.
5. The petitioner further submits that, despite repeated
representations dated 28.11.2025, 23.12.2025, 25.03.2026 and 06.04.2026,
the respondents failed to furnish the complete enquiry report and relevant
documents. Only certain illegible and incomplete pages were supplied. It is
contended that the impugned proceedings are predetermined, arbitrary and
violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. The petitioner also argues that the demand relates partly to the
period prior to commencement of its mining lease on 18.08.2010 and is
therefore unsustainable to that extent. The petitioner further relies upon the
long delay in initiating recovery proceedings, regular payment of royalty,
issuance of no-dues certificates, the interim order dated 17.05.2012 and its
acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora, vide orders dated
22.12.2022 in two criminal cases relating to alleged violations of
environmental laws.
7. It is further contended that the enquiry committee lacked statutory
authority, the respondent Collector was not competent to initiate the recovery
proceedings under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the respondents failed to undertake mine-
wise verification or distinguish fresh extraction from existing stock, old
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
4 WP-43111-2026
dumps and overburden. Reliance is also placed upon T. Takano v. Securities

and Exchange Board of India to assert that disclosure of the material relied
upon by the authorities is necessary for an effective defence.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner challenges the communications dated
10.11.2025, 03.12.2025 and 18.03.2026, along with the consequential
proceedings, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks quashing of
the impugned proceedings or, alternatively, a fresh decision after supplying
the complete records and affording an effective opportunity of hearing in
accordance with law.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioner are without jurisdiction, arbitrary
and contrary to law, principally on the ground that the Investigation
Committee was not shown to have been constituted under any statutory
provision or validly delegated statutory authority and, therefore, its report
could not form the foundation for proceedings under Section 21(5) of the
MMDR Act, 1957. It is contended that Section 21(5) vests the power to
recover the price of the mineral, royalty or tax in the State Government and
that the Collector could not assume such jurisdiction in absence of a specific
delegation. The petitioner further submits that the investigation report has
been mechanically relied upon for proposing an enormous recovery, without
furnishing the underlying material, methodology and primary records relied
upon by the Committee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It
is also contended that the petitioner had valid and subsisting mining leases
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
5 WP-43111-2026
and requisite statutory permissions and that the allegations of excess

extraction are disputed on facts and law. On these grounds, the petitioner
seeks quashing of constitution of the Committee, the investigation report and
all consequential proceedings including the show-cause notices.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that
the writ petition is premature and is not maintainable at this stage, since the
Collector, who is the competent authority seized of the matter, has issued
only show-cause notices and no final order determining the petitioner’s
liability has yet been passed. It is submitted that in Case No.0028/A-
67/2026-27, the petitioner was granted opportunities to submit its reply to
the show-cause notice, but the petitioner failed to file its complete reply, and
despite repeated adjournments, the proceedings have not been concluded
because the petitioner has not properly placed its final defence before the
competent authority. It is further submitted that the Collector is required to
consider the objections, hear both sides and determine the actual dispute
raised by the petitioner, and therefore the matter is presently sub judice
before the competent authority and interference by this Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction at this interlocutory stage is unwarranted.
11. The State further submits that the petitioner has an efficacious
statutory remedy after culmination of the proceedings, including the
appropriate appellate remedy under the applicable mining law, and therefore
it ought to first participate in the proceedings before the Collector rather than
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, if required. It is
specifically contended that the petitioner’s assertion that the Investigation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
6 WP-43111-2026
Report itself directs the Collector to recover the entire amount is factually

incorrect; the report does not constitute a final adjudication or recovery order
against the petitioner, but merely records conclusion that an amount of
Rs.81,,73,95,000/- along with GST would be appropriate for deposit, subject
to the proceedings before the competent authority. Thus, no final liability has
yet been fastened upon the petitioner, and the Collector, after considering the
petitioner’s reply and hearing all concerned, is competent to decide the
dispute in accordance with law. The petitioner’s own interim reply also
demonstrates that the show-cause proceedings are still being contested before
the Collector and that the petitioner has raised its objections therein.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. It is true that, under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, the State
Government has the power to decide the issue. However, by notification
under Section 26(2) of the MMDR Act, the State Government may delegate
its powers to the Collector or other officers. Further, under Section 23C of
the MMDR Act, the State Government may make rules for deciding the issue
under Section 21(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the State Government has
framed rules conferring powers upon the Collector and other officers not
below the rank of Deputy Collector, as authorised by the Collector.
14. Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957, is reproduced below.
[23C. Power of State Government to make rules for preventing illegal
mining, transportation and storage of minerals.―(1) The State Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
7 WP-43111-2026
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for preventing illegal

mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes
connected therewith. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:― (a) establishment of check-posts for checking
of minerals under transit; (b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the
quantity of mineral being transported; (c) regulation of mineral being
transported from the area granted under a prospecting licence or a mining
lease or a quarrying licence or a permit, in whatever name the permission to
excavate minerals, has been given; (d) inspection, checking and search of
minerals at the place of excavation or storage or during transit; (e)
maintenance of registers and forms for the purposes of these rules; (f) the
period within which and the authority to which applications for revision of
any order passed by any authority be preferred under any rule made under
this section and the fees to be paid therefore and powers of such authority for
disposing of such applications; and (g) any other matter which is required to
be, or may be, prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining,
transportation and storage of minerals. (3) Notwithstanding anything
contained in section 30, the Central Government shall have no power to
revise any order passed by a State Government or any of its authorised
officers or any authority under the rules made under sub-sections (1) and
(2).]
15. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23C of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957), the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
8 WP-43111-2026
State Government, hereby, makes the following rules, namely:- Madhya

Pradesh Mineral (Prevention Of Illegal Mining, Transportation And Storage)
Rules, 2022, Rule 18 is reproduced herein below-
"Rule – 18 says about the Penalty for illegal extraction of mineral or
illegal storage of mineral or their product.
(1) Whenever any person is found extracting or storing or on whose
behalf such extraction or storing is being made in violation of Madhya
Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 or Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining,
Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rules, 2019 or under these rules or any
other rule prevailed by department shall be presumed to be a party to the
illegal extraction or storing.
(2) To the party decided under sub-rule (1), the Collector or any
officer authorised by him not below the rank of Deputy Collector shall after
giving an opportunity of being heard determines that such person has
extracted or stored the minerals in contravention of the provisions of these
rules, then he may compound by imposing the fine of fifteen times of the
royalty on extracted or stored mineral, to the violator. Amount equivalent to
the fine shall be imposed additionally in form of environment compensation
as penalty. Fine and amount of environment compensation shall be the total
penalty.
(3) Information letter shall be issued to the violator for
compounding on total penalty as mentioned in sub-rule (2). Period of fifteen
days shall be provided in information letter to deposit the amount. This
period may be extended on the basis of suitable reasons.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
9 WP-43111-2026
(4) On payment of total imposed penalty and compounding fee of

Rupees One Thousand the compounding of the case may be made. On
deposition of total penalty the forfeited vehicle, machine, tools etc. may be
released.
(5) In case of compounding is not made by the violator as per sub-
rule (4), the case shall be moved as per the provision of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 before the authority as prescribed in sub-rule (1).
(6) The double amount to the total penalty as prescribed in sub-rule
(2) shall be imposed when the violation of illegal extraction/illegal storage is
proved. Along with this forfeited vehicle, machinery, tools etc. shall be
confiscated by cancelling the handing over as granted under the provision of
Rule 21 to the owner of vehicles. The confiscated vehicle, machinery, tools
etc. shall be disposed off in transparent manner. The amount deposited under
Rule 21 shall be refundable on decision in favour of violator otherwise the
deposited amount shall be adjusted in total penalty."
16. The objection raised by the petitioner is that the Collector has no
jurisdiction to decide the dispute under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act and
that only the State Government is empowered to do so. However, a plain
reading of the relevant provisions of the Act, read with the Madhya Pradesh
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2022, makes it clear that the Collector is empowered to decide such disputes
pursuant to the powers conferred under the said Rules. Accordingly, the
contention of the petitioner regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Collector
is not tenable. The Collector is competent to adjudicate disputes relating to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
10 WP-43111-2026
illegal mining in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.

17. The record indicates that the Collector, Jabalpur, is seized of the
proceedings arising out of show-cause notices issued under Section 21(5) of
the MMDR Act, 1957 and that no final order determining the liability of the
petitioner has yet been passed. The issues raised by petitioner, including the
legality of the alleged excess extraction, computation of amount,
applicability of statutory provisions and the effect of inquiry report, are
matters which are required to be examined in the first instance by the
competent authority upon consideration of the petitioner’s defence. The
petitioner cannot ordinarily bypass such pending statutory proceedings and
invoke the writ jurisdiction merely because a show-cause notice has been
issued.
18. We further find substance in the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner has not availed the
repeated opportunities granted by the Collector to effectively place its
defence on record. It is submitted that in the proceedings before the
Collector, Jabalpur, the petitioner was granted several opportunities and the
matter was repeatedly adjourned, yet for almost six months the petitioner did
not file its proper/final reply to the show-cause notice. In such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot complain violation of natural justice or
seek adjudication of the disputed factual issues directly by this Court while
the competent authority obliged to consider its defence. The inquiry report
also cannot, at this stage, be treated as a final order of recovery, since the
ultimate determination of liability is yet to be made by the Collector after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
11 WP-43111-2026
considering the material and hearing the parties.

19. The Collector, Jabalpur, being the competent authority, is
required to consider the petitioner’s objections, the inquiry report, the
relevant records and thereafter pass an appropriate reasoned order in
accordance with law. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the final order, it
shall be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available to it under the
MMDR Act, 1957 and the applicable mining laws. We therefore find no
exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court at the stage of a pending show-cause proceeding.
20. The petitioner's contention that the higher authorities have
already issued directions to the Collector through the inquiry reports
directing recovery of the entire amount from the petitioner, and that,
therefore, the petitioner cannot expect a fair adjudication, is not tenable. In
this regard, it is necessary to refer to the final paragraph of the report, which
reads as follows:
" 02.08.2017
अतः माननीय सव च यायालय के आदेश दनांक के पालन म
81,73,95,000/- GST
संबंिधत कंपिनय  से रािश  एवं तदनुसार क ! रािश जमा
"
कराया जाना उिचत होगा।
21. A perusal of the inquiry reports and the findings recorded by the
Inquiry Officer makes it clear that the same are not binding upon the
Collector, who is required to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing
and to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. In this regard, the
Collector has already taken steps by issuing show-cause notices to the
petitioner for adjudication of the matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:82719
12 WP-43111-2026
higher authorities have directed the Collector to recover the amount of Rs

81,73,95,000/- along with GST from the petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is noted that the
Collector, Jabalpur, has already granted to file its reply. In view of the same,
the Collector is expected to ensure the expeditious conclusion of the
proceedings and, preferably, to finally dispose of the same within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The
Collector shall decide the proceedings independently, strictly in accordance
with law, after considering the petitioner’s objections and affording it an
adequate and effective opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims or on the
petitioner’s actual liability, and the proceedings shall be decided by the
Collector uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 16-10-2026
17:53:17