The show cause notice must provide details of the nature of the offence and the grounds on which it has been issued, and the subsequent order cannot go beyond the scope of the show cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. On 31.05.2022, the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, based on some inspection report, issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner may not be punished for having excavated over Plot No.824 Kha. The petitioner replied to the said notice and submitted that he had a lease of mining work with regard to Plot No.421 Ga area 0.506 hectare and he also submitted that the petitioner was continuing with the mining work on the aforesaid plot alone. However, when final order dated 20.6.2022 was passed, it dealt with illegal mining over Plot No.421 Kha, which was definitely not the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 31.05.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the show cause notice was with regard to Plot No.824 Kha, the order ought to have been dealt with illegal mining over Plot No.824 Kha and no other plot. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others; 2011 (14) SCC 770 and submitted that if the show cause notice is defective then the consequential proceedings cannot stand. He further submits that if the show cause notice was with regard to some other plot and the punishment is being imposed with regard to some other plot then it would be deemed that the authority, which had issued the show cause notice, was not clear of the subject matter and, therefore, when there is no clarity in the show cause notice itself, the authority which has passed the impugned order could not have passed the same with regard to some other plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that when final order mentioned some other plot and the show cause notice mentioned some other plot then the entire proceedings were null and void.

4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, however, submits that the order impugned was passed with regard to Plot No.421 Kha and during the proceedings the petitioner had participated and given explanation, therefore, there was no error in the order impugned and this Court may not interfere with the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (supra) to buttress his arguments in relation to the above submissions. He placed reliance on paragraph Nos.107 to 110 of the said judgment, which are extracted as under:

“107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.

108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadue & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.

109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.

110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin.

(See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823).