Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed encroachment facts; the petitioner must contest the show-cause notice.

The petitioner held a mining lease for ordinary stone over Survey Nos. 39, 43 and 45, admeasuring 4.00 hectares at Village Khadela, Tehsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri, for the period from 25 January 2019 to 24 January 2029.

On 20 May 2026, he complained to the District Magistrate that private respondents 5 and 6 had encroached upon part of his mining area.

Subsequently, the Collector (Mineral Branch), Shivpuri, issued a show-cause notice dated 2 June 2026 alleging seven violations, including failure to provide wire fencing, boundary marks, warning boards, tax assessment, statutory returns, plantation in the barrier zone, and toilet facilities for workers.

The petitioner sought quashing of the notice, removal of the alleged encroachment, permission to operate the mine, cancellation of the private respondents’ mining allotment, registration of an FIR, and action against the Collector.

1. Whether the show-cause notice dated 2 June 2026, alleging violations of the mining-lease conditions and the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction?

2. Whether the High Court could direct removal of the alleged encroachment by private respondents when the existence and extent of the encroachment involved disputed questions of fact?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised to determine seriously disputed questions of fact or to prematurely interfere with a statutory show-cause process.

The Court relied on the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, particularly Rule 30(11) concerning boundary marks, Rule 3(19) concerning tax assessment, Rule 30(20) concerning periodic returns, and Rule 30(26), under which action may follow for violations of mining-lease conditions.

The governing principle was that a show-cause notice should ordinarily be answered before the competent authority, unless it is demonstrably without jurisdiction or otherwise legally unsustainable.

The notice also referred to applicable provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.

The Court found that the notice disclosed specific alleged breaches, including the petitioner’s failure to install wire fencing, boundary identification marks and a warning board.

These allegations raised factual and regulatory questions that had not yet been determined by the District Magistrate, including why the petitioner had failed to protect the leased area since 2019.

Consequently, the petitioner was required to contest the notice rather than seek its premature quashing.

The alleged encroachment by respondents 5 and 6 was treated as a separate cause of action involving disputed facts; the writ court could not conclusively determine that issue in the present proceedings.

The Court therefore left the petitioner free to pursue any other legal remedy available to him regarding the encroachment.

The petitioner was directed, in substance, to respond to and contest the notice before the competent authority.

The claim concerning encroachment was held to involve disputed questions of fact and was left open for determination in appropriate proceedings.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.