Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
M/s Jhv Steel Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Anjani Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mines Lko. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 4537 of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963 - Rule 41(H)(1) and 59 (2) - Lease deed - Illegal mining - Show cause notice – Challenged - Petitioner in response to an e-tender/e-auction for mining participated in auction and his bid was adjudged to be highest and lease deed was executed in favor of petitioner for period - After execution of mining lease petitioner started mining operations but suddenly One Time Password (O.T.P.) was stopped by District Magistrate - It is stated that an inspection was conducted by a team of officers of Directorate, Mining and Geology and some allegations with regard to irregularities pertaining to illegal mining were found correct and on basis of aforesaid inspection report a show cause notice was served on petitioner - According to said show cause notice issued by District Magistrate, Banda it was mentioned that an inspection was conducted by a team where it has been found that petitioner is involved in illegal mining and he has extracted minor minerals from area not allotted to him and extracted mineral to a depth which was not permissible as per lease deed - Notice was given as to why lease be not cancelled - In said show cause notice, penalty for same offence has also been fixed and recovery of royalty for an amount has also been proposed.
Finding of Court : It is noticed that revisionist therein was also confronted with same inspection report where he was also held guilty of illegal mining in an area beyond leased area allotted to him - Revisional authority has allowed revision only on ground that there is no material to indicate that lease holder was, in fact, involved in or has indulged in illegal minin - It is clear that same revisional authority in one case has sought to distinguish inspection report and declined to fasten any liability upon VAR Enterprises Private Limited while on basis of same material have held petitioner to be guilty of illegal mining - Discriminatory nature in which impugned order of punishment has been passed and, as such, action of administrative authority cannot be sustained - In this regard it has been submitted that thirty days from date of notice would expire only and fifteen days beyond said date would expire and even according to statutory provisions cancellation of lease of petitioner could not have been ordered prior to expiry of said period i.e. while in present case order of cancellation has been passed before expiry of statutory period, as such, it is clearly noticed that Rule 58 of Rules of 1963 has been flagrantly violated by respondents in cancellation of their lease in pursuance of show cause notice dated.
Result : Writ petition stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned Standing counsel, Sri Tushar Verma, Special Counsel and Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.2022 passed by the State Government thereby rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of mining lease vide order dated 26.4.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Banda.
FACTS OF THE CASE :
3. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner in response to an e-tender/e-auction for mining participated in the auction and his bid was adjudged to be the highest and lease deed was executed in favor of the petitioner on 1.6.2020 for the period from 1.6.2020 to 31.5.2025. After execution of the mining lease the petitioner started mining operations but suddenly the One Time Password (O.T.P.) was stopped by the District Magistrate, Banda on 19.3.2021. Subsequently, it is stated that an inspection was conducted by a team of officers of the Directorate, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh between 13.3.2021 and 18.3.2021 and some allegations with regard to the irregularities pertaining to illegal mining were found correct and on the basis of the aforesaid inspection report a show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 22.3.2021. According to the said show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, Banda it was mentioned that an inspection was conducted by a team where it has been found that the petitioner is involved in illegal mining and he has extracted minor minerals from the area not allotted to him and extracted mineral to a depth which was not permissible as per the lease deed. Accordingly, a notice was given as to why the lease be not cancelled. In the said show cause notice, penalty for the same offence has also been fixed as Rs.50,000/-and recovery of royalty for an amount of Rs.10,39,68,500/-has also been proposed.
4. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid show cause notice submitted reply on 30.3.2021 where it has denied the allegations leveled in the show cause notice and has stated that apart from the show cause notice no material was provided to the petitioner as directed by this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 240 passed in writ C No.51986 of 2016 and further submitted that there was no credible evidence in support of the allegations and, hence, requested for setting aside the show cause notice.
5. After considering the reply of the petitioner the District Magistrate by means of its order dated 26th April, 2021 has cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner. While rejecting the reply of the petitioner the District Magistrate has recorded that the petitioner has extracted minor minerals from an area not allotted to him and extracted 1,15,465 cubic feet of sand/maurang illegally which fact has been reported by the Mining Officer in its report dated 12.11.2020. He has further noticed that the petitioner was asked to deposit the amount of royalty of Rs.10,39,68,500/-but even the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner and accordingly he was of the view that the said outstanding amount needs to be recovered from the petitioner along with penalty as provided under Rule 41(H)(1) and 59 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963. He has further considered the fact that the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh had constituted an enforcement team for physical inspection which conducted the spot inspection on 19.3.2021 and submitted report on 19.3.2021 where it was found that the petitioner had conducted mining operations of an area 7.555 hect. and extracted 1,88,875 cubic feet of sand beyond the area allotted to him apart from other ill
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of observing the principles of natural justice in administrative decisions, and the requirement for authorities to consider relevant....
The court emphasized the importance of providing a copy of inspection reports and an opportunity of hearing before raising a demand against a party.
For the purpose of Rule 35-A, if the Government feels that the orders passed by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, on 16.10.2018 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the D....
The judgment establishes that mining authorities have the right to impose penalties for illegal mining activities based on evidence collected during inspections, and that due process must be followed....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
