Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 563
2011 (5) MLJ 253, 2011 (5) CTC 273
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. JYOTHIMANI
J. Joshuva
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer
W.P.No.37039 of 2003
Decided on : 02-02-2011
For the Petitioner:V. Sanjeevi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R. Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader.
Headnote:A. TAMILNADU MINOR AND MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1959 - RULES 36-A(1), 36-A(3), 36-A(4) & 36-A(3) - Challenge to show cause notice, based on preconceived notions asto violation by petitioner - HELD, at the most, authority, based on any inspection, information or complaint, can come to a conclusion that prima-facie there is a contravention of terms and conditions by licensee - In such cases authority in fairness is required to furnish materials relied upon along with show cause notice to enable erring license to reply - But, by ariving at conclusion like impugned show cause notice, even regarding minute details about quantum of penalty and nature and extent of violation, without even furnishing a report, to be preparted legally in petitioner’s presence and without even conducting enquiry, and calling upon petitioner to explain is certainly a preconceived notion - Show cause notice set-aside (Para 14).
B. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 226 - Challenge to show cause notice calling for explanation from licensee of mining - Simply because it is a show cause notice issued and petitioner having every right to repay, HELD, it does not mean that jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 will be ousted - When there is patent and glaring violation of principles of law, it cannot be said that impugned notice is only a show cause notice and that petition should give a reply and writ for decision - Minute details and consequences having been arrived at by respondent even before receipt of reply, indicates a clear preconceived notion. (Para 13).
Result: WP allowed.
1. he writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent dated 30.5.2002, by which the respondent has issued a show cause notice proposing to impose seigniorage charges, apart from penalty, to the tune of Rs.14,38,800/-, on the basis that the petitioner has quarried stones in the place other than the place where lease was granted.
2.1. The petitioner was granted renewal of lease to quarry stones (Kundukkal and Jelly) by proceedings of the Collector dated 18.5.1994 in the poromboke land bearing S.F.No.315, in an extent of 2 Acres in Madathupatti Village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District for a period of five years from 1.7.1994 to 30.6.1999. The lease deed was executed on 11.7.1994 and the lease period expired on 30.6.1999 and thereafter, the lease has been given to third parties.
2.2. It is stated that after three years, the respondent has issued the impugned show cause notice on the ground that on a field inspection it was found that the petitioner has quarried 4796 units of Kundukkal from non lease hold area, which is an offence under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (for short, "the Rules"), and therefore, it is proposed to recover an amount of Rs.14,38,800/-.
2.3. The show cause notice refers about the inspection of the area by the Assistant Geologist (Mines) in the report dated 24.7.1999, apart from the District Collector's letter dated 7.9.1999, copies of which were not enclosed. The petitioner has sent a representation on 18.6.2002 requesting to furnish the said documents. However, the copies were not served, except stating in the memorandum dated 28.1.2002 that the petitioner can inspect the documents during the working days. It is the case of the petitioner that he never extended the quarrying operation beyond the lease hold area.
2.4. It is stated that along with the memorandum dated 28.11.2003, the respondent has sent copies of the report of the Assistant Geologist (Mines) dated 24.7.1999 and letter of the District Collector dated 7.9.1999 and the District Collector's letter is abrupt saying that the amount has to be collected on or before 30.9.1999 without enquiry and the report of the Assistant Geologist also shows as if the petitioner has quarried in non lease hold area, directing to levy penalty for removal of rough stones from non permitted area.
2.5. According to the petitioner, the respondents have pre-determined the issue for imposing the penalty and hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the show cause notice on various grounds, including that the letters of the District Collector as well as the Assistant Geologist are pre-determined and the show cause notice issued by the respondent is only a formality, especially when the District Collector, being the higher authority of the respondent, has already taken a decision; that the show cause notice is against the principles of natural justice, since the same is not real and it has foreclosed the entire issue by even calculating the amount liable to paid; that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction, especially when the lease granted in respect of SF.No.315, to an extent of 2 Acres has already expired on 30.6.1999, while the impugned show cause notice has been issued nearly after three years on 30.5.2002 in the absence of any incriminating materials; that the inspection report itself has been prepared in the absence of the petitioner and behind his back and that cannot be basis for the purpose of issuing show cause notice; and that the Assistant Geologist (Mines), Tirunelveli himself has no jurisdiction to inspect the mines, survey and measure the mines, since under Section 24 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), it only authorises the Central Government or any person authorised by it to inspect the mines or by the State Government by general order and the Assistant Geologist is not authorised by the Central Government.
3.1. In the counter affid
