1 2025:CGHC:49900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4459 of 2025 1 - Anil Kumar Luniya S/o Shri D.C. Luniya, Aged About 54 Years R/o Hig 110, Padmanabpur, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mineral Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Geology And Mining Operation, Chhattisgarh Government Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, District North Bastar/ Kanker (C.G.) 4 - The Collector, Durg, District Office, Durg (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das,Dy.AG 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/10/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the RRC Form-1 dated 13.03.2009 issued by the respondent No.3 Collector, North Bastar (Kanker) to respondent No.4 Collector, Durg directing recovery of Rs. 6,66,75,633.75/- from the petitioner as penalty for alleged illegal mining on Khasra Nos. 123,125,127,129,130 and 139 covering an area of 18.27 hectares situated at village Bhaisankanhar, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (CG). 3. The petitioner contends that the said order was without jurisdiction in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and that subsequent criminal and environmental proceedings filed against him were dismissed in his favour. The petitioner was granted a prospecting license in 1998 and subsequently a mining lease on 13.05.2003 for iron ore was executed on 23.05.2003. The mining lease was cancelled by the State Government on 28.10.2005 leading to the filing of WP No. 6458 of 2005 which was later transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court as T.C. No. 15/18 and is still pending. No doubt, the Assistant Mineral officer filed criminal case No. 487/2013 under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 4-A(1) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and Rule 13(1), 13(2), 37,38,39,40,41 and 58 and Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 which was dismissed by 3 the CJM, North Bastar on 21.12.2015 and revision filed before the Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanaker was dismissed on 17.03.2021. Cr.M.P. No. 884/2016 filed by the Environment Conservation Board, Jagdalpur and WP (Cr.) Nos. 7/7-12/7 filed by the Collector against truck owners were dismissed, further affirming the petitioner’s position. On 11.09.2024, the order of the Collector has been quashed against the M/s, Tirupati Buildcon Private Limited and directed proceedings in accordance with law and rules by filing complaint. During pendency of these proceedings, the Collector, North Bastar Kanker issued RRC Form-1 on 13.03.2009 followed by recovery proceedings before Nayab Tahsildar, Durg (Revenue Case No. 01-A-76/2009-10). The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 46-A/2011 (Now 26A/13) before the 8th Civil Judge, Class II, Durg along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, seeking stay of coercive recovery. Vide order dated 04.04.2011, the Civil Court granted interim relief restraining attachment or coercive recovery of petitioner’s movable and immovable property and the suit is still pending. 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the RRC Form- 1 is illegal and without jurisdiction and seeks a direction restraining the respondents from taking any action under the same. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has already obtained interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC from the competent Civil Court in the year 2011. The petition is therefore redundant seeking the same relief that has already been granted and that there is delay of 16 years in approaching this court. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through the 4 record, it indicates that the Assistant Mineral Officer initiated a Criminal Case No. 487/2013 by the under Sections 4(1), 4(1A), 4-A(1) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and Rule 13(1), 13(2), 37,38,39,40,41 and 58 and Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 and the said case came to be dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar vide order dated 21.12.2015. Subsequently, revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker which also met with dismissal on 17.03.2021 upholding the findings of the trial court. Thereafter Cr.M.P. No. 884/2016 filed by the Environment Conservation Board, Jagdalpur as well as WP (Cr.) Nos. 7/2007 to 12/2007 instituted by the Collector, North Bastar against the truck owners, were dismissed. Surprisingly, the Collector has issued the RRC against the petitioner when the courts have categorically dismissed the charges and upheld the petitioner's legal position. However, the petitioner has fully availed the alternative remedy available under the law. The stay granted by the Civil Court under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC on 04.04.2011 continues to restrain any coercive action pursuant to RRC Form-1. It is well settled that a writ petition cannot be entertained where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is available particularly when interim relief has been granted by the Civil Court. Moreover, there has been an inordinate delay of over 16 years in filing the present petition and the petitioner had full knowledge of the recovery proceedings. Now, the petitioner cannot approach this court for the same relief already granted by a competent Civil Court as it would amount to abuse of the process of law. The fact that all criminal and environmental proceedings against the petitioner have been 5 decided in his favor further reinforces that the present petition is merely repetitive and devoid of fresh grounds. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is devoid of merits. There is no good ground for interference as the petitioner has already secured interim protection before the Civil Court. Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file application for amendment before the trial court. The petitioner is at liberty to file the same if he so desires. 8. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner's right to pursue his case before the competent Civil Court. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.10 10:58:18 +0530