The judgment establishes the principle that the observance of natural justice, including providing an opportunity to be heard and access to relevant documents, is essential before taking any adverse decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petitioner is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by altogether 63 writ petitioners who had deposited the separate court fees seeking therein the direction for quashing of the demand notices, annexed as Annexure-1 series issued by the respondent, by which, the demand has been made in consequence of the decision taken of less royalty calculated based upon inspection conducted as referred in the inspection report.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, read as under.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they used to manufacture bricks and are registered dealers under Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017.

4. After inspection of their bricks kilns, the petitioners started manufacturing bricks and also used to file return regularly and pay royalty time to time. The petitioners are entitled to manufactured lakhs bricks per year. All of a sudden, the respondent no. 2 issued demand notices against the petitioners directing them to deposit certain amount towards less payment of royalty and also penalty.

5. All the writ petitioners were issued demand notices claiming less payment of royalty and penalty imposed thereon.

6. It is the further case that the petitioners have deposited full amount of royalty on number of bricks manufactured. It appears from the demand notices (Annexure-1 series), that such demand was raised on the basis of a report of inspection said to have done by the department.

7. It is stated that no notice whatsoever has been issued by the respondents about the date of inspection and in spite of repeated demands, the respondent no. 2 did not provide inspection report or the method of calculation of less payment of royalty and amount imposed.

8. It is the further case that respondent no. 2 neither provide any inspection report nor fixing any date or place of hearing as per Rule 41 of J.M.M.C. Rules for the purpose of fixing amount of less royalty.

9. The aforesaid notice transpires that Mines Inspector in his report dated 18.01.2019 indicated that the Kiln owner did deposit the royalty and has not obtained license for the financial year 2018-2019 and has started operating kiln. No report dated 18.01.2019 has been provided to the petitioners at any point of time.

10. In report dated 18.01.2019, it was no-where reflected that the petitioners have violated Rule 30 & 32 of J.M.M.C. Rules. It is also no-where stated that the petitioners operating its kiln without payment of royalty and without any license.

11. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioners are carrying on their business of manufacturing of bricks and are registered dealers under Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017.

12. It is the grievance of the writ petitioners that based upon one inspection, demand notices have been issued on the basis of the fact that amount which was deposited on behalf of one or the other writ petitioners, is less so far as royalty is concerned.

13. The basis of filing this writ petition is that copy of the inspection report which is the basis of issuance of demand notice has never been served to the writ petitioners and thereby the vital opportunity to put-forth their defence has not been provided, hence, the writ petition.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the copy of inspection report has not been supplied before raising the demand on the basis of less royalty having been made by one or the other writ petitioners and hence, the non-supply of the inspection report is contrary to the principle of having adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend oneself so far as the calculation of the said demands are concerned.

15. The State has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition by filing the counter affidavit.

16. However, Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the respo