Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3262
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN
S. Raj Ganesh
Versus
The Director, Geology and Mining, Villupuram District & Others
Writ Petition No. 11421 of 2011 & M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2011
Decided on : 15-07-2011
For the Petitioner:Ms.S. Rajeni Ramadass, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader.
The importance of fair opportunity and proper analysis in administrative decisions and the need for reasons in passing penalty orders.
Headnote:
Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 - Illegal Transportation of Black Granites - Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, Rule 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's lorry was seized for illegal transportation of black granites without a proper permit. The petitioner was coerced to sign blank sheets and later received a penalty order. The petitioner filed multiple appeals and a writ petition to challenge the penalty orders.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned orders were passed without proper analysis and reasons. The petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances of the transportation. The court directed the first respondent to reconsider the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law.
Issues: Coercion of the petitioner, lack of fair opportunity, delay in appeal filing, and lack of proper analysis in passing penalty orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and the need for proper analysis and reasons in passing penalty orders.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the first respondent to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20 X 7893. On 14.4.2008, Nedumaran, the manager of M/s.Enterprising Enterprises, a company, which is carrying on business in quarrying of granites at Kunnam Village, had approached the petitioner, through his driver, for hiring the lorry for the transportation of black granites to SBS Granites, Poonamallee.
3. The petitioner had been informed that the permit for transporting the black granites would be handed over to the driver of the lorry, at Tindivanam. While the lorry was transporting the black granites, on 14.4.2008, it had been seized by the Tahsildar, Villupuram District, for illegal transportation of the black granites, without a proper permit.
4. It had been further stated that the District Collector, Villupuram District, had called the petitioner for an enquiry, on 2.6.2008. When the petitioner had gone to attend the enquiry he was informed that the enquiry had been postponed and that he would be intimated about the next date of enquiry. However, the petitioner was made to sign in some blank sheets, under threat. Thereafter, the petitioner had not been called to attend the enquiry. However the petitioner had received an order, dated 15.7.2008, from the second respondent, asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,24,486/-, as penalty. The petitioner had found that the respondents had made use of the blank sheets signed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner had accepted that the black granites had been transported, illegally, without a valid permit.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.19992 of 2008, to release the lorry in question. The writ petition had been disposed of by this Court, by its order, dated 20.8.2008. Further, the petitioner had filed an appeal, dated 15.9.2008, before the first respondent, to set aside the order of the second respondent, dated 15.7.2008. The petitioner had also filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.27880 of 2008, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. This Court had directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court.
6. Thereafter, the first respondent had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by an order, dated 29.5.2009, on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the third respondent. While so, the second respondent had passed an order, dated 14.8.2009, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,24,486/-, as penalty. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders of the second respondent, dated 15.7.2008 and dated 14.8.2009, are contrary to Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders have been passed, without perusing the records available on record and without application of mind.
8. A penalty of Rs.10,24,486/-, had been imposed on the petitioner, who had only transported black granites, without a valid permit. However, no penal action had been initiated against the actual owner of the black granites, which was being transported through the lorry belonging to the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that there is no provision of law giving the power or the authority to the respondents to impose a penalty on the owner of the vehicle, who had transported the black granites, innocently, without knowing that it was a serious irregularity.
10. The learned counsel ap
