The court reaffirmed that a lack of notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering the penalty order invalid.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 28.10.2024 thereby imposed penalty of Rs.2,14,28,549/- as penalty for the illegal quarrying of gravel and rough stone.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner was issued quarrying lease dated 10.06.2016 to quarry rough stone and gravel from the patta land comprised in S.F.Nos. 372/1A (0.33.0 Hectare), 372/1B (0.15.5 Hectare), 372/2A (0.30.0 Hectare, 372/2B (0.20.0 Hectare), 372/2C (0.38.0 Hectare), 372/2D (0.40.0 Hectare), 372/2D (0.03.0 Hectare), 378/1B (0.25.0 Hectare), 378/1C (0.30.0 Hectare) and 378/2 (0.38.0 Hectare), measuring to total extent of 2.72.5 hectares situated at Thimmarasanayakkanur Bit – 1 Village, Andipatty Taluk, Theni District for a period of five years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The petitioner also obtained mining plan approval and environmental clearance. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to quarry rough stone and gravel to the tune of 1,73,290 cu.m., and 40,768 cu.m., respectively. The lease period of the petitioner got expired on 09.06.2021. While being so, the petitioner was served with impugned order alleging that the petitioner had excessly quarried gravel and rough stone to the tune of 21057 cu.m., and 28698 cu.m., respectively from the leasehold area and thereby, he was imposed with penalty under Rule 36A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice and he was not given opportunity of hearing before passing the order. According to the respondent, 39 quarries were issued with single enquiry notice and they were directed to appear for hearing on 08.01.2024 along with files, on the strength of the report submitted by the Inspection Committee. It was received by one Ganesan, that too in the name of M/s.Blue Metal and he himself submitted his explanation. The petitioner firm is consisting of two partners namely, R.R.Ramamohanrav and R.Saravanan. The said Ganesan is noway connected with the petitioner and he was never engaged by the petitioner to receive any show cause notice or to attend the enquiry conducted by the respondent. That apart, the impugned order does not have any discussion about the explanation submitted by the said Ganesan. Therefore, it is a non-speaking order. In support of his contention, he relied upon the the following judgments:-

(i) Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2018 in WP(MD)No.19936 of 2017 etc., batch;

(ii) Common order of this Court dated 12.08.2022 made in WP.Nos.32267 & 32268 of 2012;

(iii) Judgment of the Division bench of this Court reported in 2023-1-Writ L.R. 140 in the case of S.Annadurai vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government Industries Department, Fort St..George, Chennai – 600 009

(iv) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1711-1712/2021 dated 27.11.2024 ;

(v) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13919 of 2024 dated 05.12.2024.

5. On production of the files, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was duly served with enquiry notice dated 29.12.2023 through person. It was duly received by one Ganesan, on behalf of the petitioner and he submitted an explanation. Therefore, the petitioner has given an opportunity to submit the explanation and on receipt of the said explanation, the respondent passed the orders. That apart, the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand, since the Rule permits for personal hearing in the said judgments. Whereas the Rule 36-A (5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 does not provide any opportunity of hearing and it says only show cause notice.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for