The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to a vehicle owner whose commercial vehicle was seized in connection with an alleged illegal mining case. While hearing the matter, the court also agreed to examine the constitutional validity of Rule 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, after the petitioner argued that it permits a penalty higher than what is allowed under the central mining law.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Vikas Kumar Pradhan, challenging Rule 18 of the 2022 Rules. According to the plea, the rule authorises penalties exceeding the maximum fine of ₹5 lakh prescribed under Section 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The petitioner also sought the release of his seized commercial vehicle. He informed the court that the competent authority had imposed a penalty of ₹5.22 lakh and that the vehicle, valued at around ₹20 lakh, had remained in the custody of the authorities. He submitted that the seizure had affected his commercial work and was causing significant financial loss.
Court's Observation
The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal under Rule 27 of the 2022 Rules.
However, the division bench was not persuaded at this stage.
The bench observed,
"Since a prima facie case is made out to challenge Rule 18 of the Rules, 2022... the remedy of appeal would not be an efficacious remedy in the present case."
Taking note of the challenge to the legality of Rule 18 itself, the court decided to issue notice in the petition and granted interim protection to the petitioner pending further proceedings.
Interim Relief Granted
Allowing the request for interim relief, the High Court directed the competent authority to release the seized vehicle after verifying the ownership documents.
The release has been made subject to several conditions. The petitioner must deposit ₹3 lakh towards the penalty amount, furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the approximate value of the vehicle, and undertake not to transfer or alter the vehicle. The petitioner must also produce the vehicle whenever directed by the court.
The bench further clarified that if the vehicle is found involved in another case of illegal mining, the authorities would be free to seize it again. The court also stated that the deposit of the penalty amount and release of the vehicle would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
Court's Decision
The High Court directed the authorities to complete the process of releasing the vehicle within 15 days after the petitioner complies with the conditions laid down in the order.
The matter has been directed to be listed along with connected petitions involving similar legal issues.
Case Details
Case Title: Vikas Kumar Pradhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20323 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi
Decision Date: 22 June 2026
