IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is the significance of natural justice in administrative actions, emphasizing the requirement for prior notice and the opportunity to be heard before making decisions with civil consequences.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Dixit, learned Special P.P. Mines.

2. The prayer is for quashing of the:

(i) order contained in memo no. 5621 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the Department of Mines and Geology by which the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura has been directed to impose a fine of Rs. 5,58,84,731/- and

(ii) for quashing of the order as contained in letter no. 1418 dated 28.11.2022 issued by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 5,58,84,731/-(Five Crores Fifty Lakhs Eighty four Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty one Rupees) as fine for having violated rule 39 and 56 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention Of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 as the ground of having stored stone mineral at his site which is bad and illegal and based on totally misconceived provisions of law and further for any other relief(s) for which the petitioner may found entitled to.

3. The facts of the case narrated is/are as follows:-

4. The petitioner was granted a mining lease at Mauza-Matokar, Surdaspur, District -Sheikhpura, P.O.-Sheikhpura Khata No. 272 and 132, Plot No. 1030(P), Block No. 5.

5. He as such, was acting in accordance with the notification no. 15 of 2018 issued on 28.11.2018 by the District Mining Office, Sheikhpura (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).

6. However, he was surprised to receive the two letters in quick succession. His case is that before asking him to pay Rs. 5,58,84,731/-, he was never issued any notice.

7. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that a perusal of the letter no. 5621 dated 17.11.2022 issued by the Joint Secretary of the Mines and Geology Department, Bihar, Patna as also the letter no. 1418 dated 28.11.2022 issued by the Collector, Sheikhpura (Annexure 15 and 16 respectively to the writ petition) clearly shows that :-

(i) the petitioner was not put on notice before the said orders were passed;

(ii) there is non-application of mind on the part of the Collector, Sheikhpura and he has simply followed the direction of the Joint Secretary of the Department;

(iii) the Joint Secretary had no authority to give any such direction to the Collector.

8. He as such, submits that on this count alone, the orders in question is/are fit to be quashed.

9. He has taken this Court straightway to a recent order of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 with specific reference to paragraph 36 which read as follows:-

“36. We need to bear in mind that the principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities. They constitute substantive obligations that need to be followed by decision-making and adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice act as a guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure and substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities. Two fundamental principles of natural justice are entrenched in Indian jurisprudence: (i) nemo judex in causa sua, which means that no person should be a Judge in their own cause; and

(ii) audi alteram partem, which means that a person affected by administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial action must be heard before a decision is taken. The courts generally favour interpretation of a statutory provision consistent with the principles of natural justice because it is presumed that the statutory authorities do not intend to contravene fundamental rights. Application of the said principles depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, express language and basic scheme of the statute under which the administrative power is exercised, the nature and purpose for which the power is conferred, and the final effect of the exercise of that power.”

10. He has further drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 45 of the said order which read as follows:-

“45. In Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, a two-Judge Bench of this Cour