JYOTI SARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner alongwith Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel and the Advocate on record Mr. Bimlendu Shekhar Thakur. The State is represented by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned counsel for the Mining Department.

2. The petitioner is the settlee of sand ghats in the district of Patna, Saran and Bhojpur. Although the writ petition was filed praying for issuance of a number of directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate the sand ghats settled with him without causing hindrance and also to provide administrative support for smooth operation thereof but before the matter could be taken for final consideration that cancellation orders have been passed by the licensing authority in respect of the sand ghat(s) at Patna and Saran. The petitioner has filed interlocutory application(s) to question the cancellation orders so passed by the District Magistrate, Patna and Saran. In so far as the district of Bhojpur is concerned, it is stated at the Bar that the cancellation order has also been passed in respect of the said district by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur but the order has not been received.

3. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has chosen to restrict the challenge to the impugned action relating to the sand ghats at Patna while seeking leave to question the orders passed by the licensing authority in respect of the sand ghats at Saran and Bhojpur independently by filing separate writ petitions.

4. Leave is granted.

5. Mr. Giri has endeavoured to question the proceeding leading to cancellation order in question bearing memo No. 739 dated 15.9.2017, impugned at Annexure 23, on grounds that it is influenced by the orders of the superior authority. According to learned Senior Counsel, the conclusion drawn is again resting on no evidence and that the order of cancellation proceeds on a vague show cause which does not give any descriptive details on the allegation. While questioning the order on procedural lapse Mr. Giri has invited the attention of this Court to the stipulations underlying Rule 24(3) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) to submit that the Collector, Patna, who is the licensing authority for the settlement in question, even though has been conferred with the power to determine the lease and pass appropriate orders thereon but such exercise is accompanied with an obligation of giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard. It is argued by Mr. Giri and not contested that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner, rather it is simply on the basis of show cause reply filed by the petitioner that the opinion has been formed by the Collector, Patna. According to Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, where the Statute prescribes the mode and manner of disposal of a matter, the statutory authority acting under the Statute, needs to follow the law and since it casts an obligation on the Collector to provide an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned, such opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner.

6. The argument of Mr. Giri has been contested by the learned Advocate General to submit that the Collector having given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the charges when he was put on notice of show cause, it would satisfy the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. According to the learned Advocate General, since the Act does not provide for personal hearing, the contention advanced cannot be upheld.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

8. In the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass, for the present it would not be required to delve deep into the merits of the case because in my considered opinion and in view of long l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document