Challenges to mining-recovery show-cause notices are premature while the Collector’s adjudication remains pending.

Pacific Export challenged proceedings initiated under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), including show-cause notices seeking recovery of approximately ₹81.73 crore plus GST for alleged excess extraction of iron ore from its mining lease at Village Jheethee, Jabalpur

The petitioner contended that the investigation report underpinning the proposed recovery was prepared without notice, that relevant records had not been fully disclosed, and that the Collector lacked authority to decide the matter

The State maintained that the Collector had issued only show-cause notices, had not determined liability, and had granted the petitioner opportunities to submit its defence

The writ petition was heard while the proceedings remained pending before the Collector

Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act empowers the State Government to decide recovery issues concerning minerals raised without lawful authority; the Court noted that State Government powers may be delegated under Section 26(2).

Section 23C authorises State Governments to make rules to prevent illegal mining, transportation, and storage.

Applying Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, the Court held that the Collector, or an officer authorised by the Collector not below the rank of Deputy Collector, may determine alleged illegal extraction or storage after giving the concerned person an opportunity of hearing.

The Court also applied the principle that writ intervention is ordinarily unwarranted at the show-cause stage where the competent authority has yet to determine liability and the affected party can present its objections in the pending proceedings.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional objection because Section 23C rules, particularly Rule 18, empowered the Collector to adjudicate alleged illegal mining after providing a hearing.

It found that no final recovery order had been made: the investigation report was not binding on the Collector, and the Collector remained responsible for independently assessing the report, records, and petitioner’s objections.

Since the petitioner had been given opportunities to submit its defence but had not filed a proper final reply, the Court found no basis to decide disputed factual matters or intervene on natural-justice grounds while the proceedings remained pending.

It left the petitioner’s substantive objections and liability for determination by the Collector.

It dismissed the petition, directed the Collector to decide the proceedings independently, in accordance with law and after an adequate opportunity of hearing, preferably within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order, and clarified that it had expressed no view on the merits or the petitioner’s liability.