Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
M/s V.R. Minerals - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.5481 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, A.C. to A.G.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Terms of the license - Formation of opinion by the statutory authority - It is specific case petitioner that after report submitted by audit team show cause notice has been issued to him regarding extra liability and in pursuance said show cause he has submitted his reply but it is evident from face of order that there is no consideration response submitted by petitioner and therefore said order cannot be said to be justifiable in eye of law – Held, This Court after keeping aforesaid legal position in consideration and taking into consideration impugned decision whereby and where there is no consideration of show cause rather in one word show cause has been rejected by saying that it is not satisfactory therefore there is no reason as to what led authority by holding show cause as not satisfactory and question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction would come only if reason would have been reflected from face of order - In view thereof impugned decision cannot be said to be in consonance with legal position and in pursuance to principles of natural justice therefore same is not sustainable in eye of law accordingly same is quashed - It is also settled position of law that on technicality no one can take advantage therefore since this Court is quashing impugned decision as such justice demand that matter be looked into by Deputy Commissioner by calling for entire records from office of District Mining Officer and to take fresh decision on basis reply already submitted by petitioner by passing speaking order within period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy order – Petition disposed
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is against the order dated 29.09.2018 by which a demand of Rs.2,25,52,619.83/- has been casted upon the petitioner on the basis of the audit report in consequence of the mining operation excess to its entitlement.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the report submitted by audit team, show cause notice has been issued to him regarding the extra liability and in pursuance to the said show cause, he has submitted his reply but it is evident from the face of the order that there is no consideration of the response submitted by the petitioner and therefore, the said order cannot be said to be justifiable in the eye of law.
3. Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned AC to learned AG has submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he has carried out the mining operation excess of its stipulation made in the terms of the license and the same was found to be confirmed by the audit team, in consequence thereof, a liability of sum of Rs.2,25,52,619.83/- has been casted upon the petitioner and show cause notice has been issued and after considering the content of the show cause notice when it is found to be not satisfactory, the said order has been passed directing the petitioner to make payment within a period of 07 (seven) days, therefore, there is no infirmity in the said order.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitioner has been issued four mining leases by the competent authority and he is carrying out the mining operation but in course of an audit conducted with respect to the operation of the mining work as to whether the mining operation is excess to the lease hold area, it has been found that the mining operation is excess to the lease hold area, therefore, liability has been casted upon the petitioner and before holding the petitioner entitled to make payment, a show cause notice has been issued.
5. The petitioner has responded to the said show cause as would be evident from the order dated 29.09.2018 but it is evident there from that the said show cause notice has been found to be not satisfactory and in consequence thereof, the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.2,25,52,619.83/-, to be paid within a period of 07 days failing which appropriate case shall be instituted against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that there is no consideration of the show cause reply dated 04.09.2018 submitted by the petitioner.
7. Before delving with the legality and proprietory of the order and its consideration, this Court thinks it proper to make reference of the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in (1952) SC 16 pr.9 which reads hereunder as:-
“9. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what be meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”
In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in (1978)1 SCC 405 pr.8, which reads hereunder as:-
“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to t
