The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper application of mind, evidence, and adjudication before concluding illegal mining, as well as the prohibition of accepting money prior to adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instructions filed today by learned Standing Counsel be kept on record.

2. In pursuance of an e-tender notice dated 9.6.2017, the petitioner applied and when he was found to be the highest bidder for the mining of morum of 30,351 cubic meters in Plot no. 6 of Zone-10, area 10 acre, he was given a six months permit from 9.6.2017 to 8.12.2017. While the petitioner was excavating the morum, he got a notice dated 25.6.2017, which was numbered as Letter No. 356, and he was to give an explanation with regard to non submission of environmental clearance certificate and non installation of CCTV camera etc. Simultaneously, another notice was served upon the petitioner on 5.7.2017, wherein, the same notice number being Letter No. 356 was given and he was required to show cause as to why royalty and penalty for illegal mining of 5436 cubic meters be not taken from him.

3. On 12.7.2017, the petitioner's reply to the notice with regard to the illegal mining was submitted wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not done any illegal mining but in fact had carved out a certain path for reaching the place of mining. When the petitioner's reply was not being considered, he filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 55531 of 2017 and challenged the notice dated 25.6.2017. However, this Court on 22.11.2017 passed an order that the petitioner's reply be considered within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of order dated 22.11.2017.

4. Pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 55531 of 2017, an order was passed on 25.1.2018, wherein, it was alleged that since the petitioner had accepted that he had done illegal mining by depositing a penalty of Rs.5 lacs, it had to be concluded that the petitioner had done illegal mining. In between the passing of the order dated 25.1.2018 and the issuing of the notices/orders dated 31.5.2018 and 18.8.2018 for depositing of Rs.38,88,000/-towards royalty, the petitioner had also filed an application on 6.2.2018 stating that the order was a non-speaking one and that it was based upon no inspection report etc.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2018 and the notice for depositing the penalty etc. dated 31.5.2018, the instant writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents have acted in a most mala fide manner. There were two notices issued on 25.6.2017 and 5.7.2017 and both were numbered as Letter No. 356. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that without any inspection and without any application of mind, notices were sent. Further, it has been submitted that after the notices were sent, an assurance was given to the petitioner that if he deposited Rs.5 lacs, then the matter would be compounded and no further action would be taken and therefore, the petitioner had deposited the Rs.5 lacs on 28.9.2017 on the basis of an oral assurance given by respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner on the oral assurance had deposited the money and had therefore, virtually been duped of Rs.5 lacs as it was not even taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 25.1.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the notice dated 25.6.2017 had stated that illegal mining was to the extent of 5436 cubic meters but the order had stated that the illegal mining was to the tune of 4320 cubic meters. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that categorically in the reply, which the petitioner had given in pursuance to the notice dated 25.6.2017 with regard to illegal mining, he had stated that he had only carved out a passage through the plot in which it was alleged that illegal mining had taken place, but this aspect of the matter was not even remotely considered.

8. With regard to the depositing of Rs.5 lacs on the oral assurance of the respondents, mention has been made by the petitioner in paragraph nos.30 to 32 of the writ petition. They are thus bein