High Court Rejects BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak-Linked Pacific Export’s Plea Against ₹81.73 Crore Recovery
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a petition filed by Pacific Export, a company linked in reports to BJP MLA Sanjay Pathak, challenging a recovery demand of ₹81.73 crore in a case concerning alleged excess iron ore mining. The development adds another chapter to the ongoing legal dispute over mining operations and government dues in Madhya Pradesh.
The case forms part of a wider controversy involving Pacific Export, Anand Mining Corporation and Nirmala Minerals, three companies associated in public reporting with Pathak and his family. Authorities have alleged that the companies extracted minerals beyond their permitted limits in the Sihora area of Jabalpur district.
The larger recovery dispute gained prominence in 2025 after a state government inquiry recommended recovery of approximately ₹443 crore from the three firms. The investigation reportedly relied on technical assessments, satellite imagery, differential GPS mapping and mining-related records to examine the extent of extraction beyond authorised limits.
The state government also informed the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly about the proposed recovery. The amount reportedly included penalties and associated tax liabilities, although the specific financial demands against individual companies have been dealt with separately.
Pacific Export challenged the recovery proceedings before the High Court, seeking relief against the demand of ₹81.73 crore. The rejection of its plea represents a setback for the company in its attempt to contest the recovery through that particular legal proceeding. The precise scope of the court’s order and any further remedies available to the company depend on the terms of the judgment.
The dispute has also attracted judicial attention because of a separate development in September 2025, when Justice Vishal Mishra recused himself from hearing a related mining case after recording that Sanjay Pathak had attempted to contact him to discuss the matter. The judge referred the case for reassignment.
In April 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the registration of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Pathak in connection with the alleged attempt to contact the judge. That proceeding is separate from the question of recovery of mining dues and must be assessed independently.
The mining dispute raises broader questions about regulatory compliance, the enforcement of extraction limits and the recovery of public revenue. For the state government, the central issue is whether the amounts assessed through the investigation can be legally sustained and recovered. For the companies, the proceedings concern their ability to challenge the calculations and legal basis of the demands.
The High Court’s rejection of Pacific Export’s plea does not, by itself, establish criminal guilt on the part of the company’s associated individuals. Allegations of excess mining, financial liability and any separate criminal or contempt proceedings remain governed by their respective legal processes.
The next developments will depend on the detailed court order, the recovery action pursued by the authorities and whether Pacific Export seeks further judicial relief. The case continues to be significant for Madhya Pradesh’s mining sector because of the scale of the disputed amount and the scrutiny of alleged excess extraction.
