Procedural change in mineral extraction proceedings did not justify review where the officer had statutory competence to act.

Where the governing statute authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer to act against illegal extraction of minerals, the amendment to Rule 53 was treated as a procedural change in the mode of proceeding and not as a basis for review merely because the forum had changed. The High Court examined the amended rule, the officer's power under Section 247(7) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the earlier directions, and found the precedent relied on by the review petitioners distinguishable because it arose in a different statutory setting. No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, so the review petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Rule 53 of the M. P. Minor and Mineral Rules, 1996 applied to proceedings for illegal extraction of minerals, whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had competence to initiate and decide such proceedings, and whether the earlier order required review on the ground that change of forum affected vested rights.

Analysis: The review challenge proceeded on the basis that a change in the forum is not a mere procedural alteration and that the authority competent to act must be determined with reference to the law governing the proceedings. The Court examined the amendment to Rule 53, the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 247(7) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the nature of the earlier directions. It held that the precedent relied upon by the review petitioners dealt with a different statutory setting and was distinguishable, because in the present matter the Sub-Divisional Officer was empowered under the governing law to proceed against illegal extraction of minerals. The Court also found no error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The amended procedural framework did not warrant review, and the Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to proceed. The review petitions were therefore without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing statute authorises the concerned officer to act against illegal mineral extraction, an amendment affecting the mode of proceeding is procedural and does not by itself create a reviewable error merely because the forum has changed.

---