Sankalp Sharma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that it could not entertain the writ petition as the complaint fundamentally required an inquiry into factual matters. Such an inquiry is not within the scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the petitioner had already made a representation to the Collector, Sheopur, concerning the allegations. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to pursue that representation. The Court expressed hope that the Collector would examine the allegations and address them in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, a social activist and resident of District Sheopur, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that builders undertaking construction activities in the area were excavating and transporting minerals without paying Goods and Services Tax (GST) and royalty. The petitioner had previously submitted a representation to the Collector regarding these allegations. The respondents included various government departments and officials, as well as individuals identified as builders and suppliers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can entertain a complaint that essentially requires an inquiry into factual matters concerning the alleged evasion of GST and royalty on mineral excavation and transportation. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, by filing a PIL, sought to bring to the court's attention alleged illegal activities involving tax evasion. The petitioner had already made a representation to the Collector, implying a procedural step taken before approaching the court. Revenue/State's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The court's observation suggests that the nature of the complaint necessitates a factual inquiry, which is not the primary function of a writ court.