IN THE HIGH COUP.T OF M^DI-iiTA PRM3ESH ATJABALPUR WRIT PETITIOH N0. OF 1995 vf 2 aa^ t/ » DevanandBad'ssj-ii aged 41 yxs, s/o Isbe Shri Galabmal Badwani^ B/O Pafadih, Raipur, District Raipur(HP). Anil Kinnar Badx'yani aged 30 years, s/o Shri Nichanflas Badwani, r/o Fafadib, Raipur, Distnct Kaupur Harish Kuraar Badwani aged 24 years, s/o Shri Nicbandas Badwani, r/o Fafadib, Raipiir,. "istrict Raipur Suresh Kumar Badwani aged 37 years, son of Jodharam Badwani r/o FaiSadih, Raipur,Dist-b«Raipur(MP) • SuniS; Kzmar Badwani aged 27 years» son of Shri Jbamuraal Badwani, r/o Fafadih, Raipur,Distt.Raipur(MP) Shri iJhamumal Badwani, aged 60 years, s/o of Shri Sam Sti Eakhaiyamal Badwani; r/o Pafadih,Raipur,Distt«Raipiic(MP) M/s Karmal Dwarka Prasad throagh Sbri &iil Kumar Gangwani» aged 23 yrs» s/o late Shrl Karamal r/o Fafadih, Baipur,Digtt.Raipur VERSUS State of M.P, Mineral Resoxirces, Department of Vallabh .Bhav.'an, Bhopala '.Phe Conniissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. ^ The Collectord'iini.ng Section) Durg (MP) Ibe Hining Officer* Durcr(MP) .PETITIONESS .RESPONDENTS , , ( PETITION UNE.'ER &RTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE COHSTITUI'ION OF INDIA PffiTICULfiRS OP PEriTIONERi [-HC-22 sn^r^iT f^:TR)3TI^T SbKi<t](rf?(T ^M ^^5?-^-;::3f; j^^^tE 3F5? "i<|i)lc)''i|, tSTntt'is, Rifiiyy Sii^i ^aeb ^..^,<9.^D...lS:^ V 11*1WI Shlich "^J fd'b.d an^TS^nwH^g' il, Sr. the petitioner. N.K. Agarwal, Heard learned counset fijir The petitioner has pref^i iegality andcorrectness of th^ passed by the -Collector, Durg of Rs.12,000/- under Rule 2f 1961 and aiso questioning Commissioner whsreby the ord( Leamed counsei for th4 other grounds, on th4 that in similarly s^tuated a case of Ashok Kumar vide imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- or^ submitting monthly statement record properly, fine of Rs.1,0!^ Perusal of the petition^ because monthly statement regarding excavation was not qiPTfepft^ TORff ff fW'rf^RTC ^TSrf^TSD^T ^eputy Advocate Senera! for ^rred this writ petition ^ order dated 7+h/ 8th where.by the Coilector (1)(16) of M.P. Minor Minerats Rules, 1'he appetbte order sr of Collector was ui petitioner challenged cases learned Arlnexure 6-1 dated 6 / !y. In the case of bf stock in time and not ,0!p0/- was iwposed. [r's cass shows that fine ^as not produced in maintained properly and in -7+h was and fine of Rs.12,000/- was imposed. /•iaAAfeA\- --- /'PS1 XI-HC-22 *l]1WTSii»ITth ^sf ^ww^, w^[wie, Rii-iiyy 311^1 Mactl " H^ f^<i«d W^T^iT f^iRisn^r gw^Hfsci' 9hH •a'n^TgraWHf^T _^•^. chi'ii?ci'ill-f Hi>i<-]T^te^t'<Ri«i< ^3rf^iT3.n^r loner ttiis As far as the merit of order revecis that the petition^ issuance of the notice for not f] record regarding excavation, th I do not find ony substance in the fine imposed on Ashok substantia! disparity. In view of the above, if reduced to Rs.5,000/- that will petition is allowed, whiie ma| Collector dnd 11ie fins amount irhi Rs.5,000/- from Rs.12,000/-. Certified copy as per rule^ 1?ie case is concemed, perusal e i^r failsd to show proper cause erefore, as far as merit is his writ petition. Howevsr, and the petitioner, it ^he fine imposed on the meet ends of justice. There intaining the order passed iposed on the petitioner is L. 1'1:@