The imposition of a penalty without adhering to principles of natural justice is unlawful.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 02-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Mines Department.

2. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel for the Mines Department has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain versus Union of India and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2510 and submitted that there is an alternative remedy of appeal and therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained on the ground of alternative remedy.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the principle of natural justice has not be followed the present writ petition of the petitioner is maintainable and he cannot be asked to go in appeal.

4. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“1. For issuance of an appropriate writ to quash the order dated 06.03.2022 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No.-2 vide letter No.-398 to the previous concession holder of Cluster-61 (Sobh Sand Ghat), Gaya i.e. in the name of Dhiraj Kumar by which penalty of Rs. 01,81,72,195/- has been imposed on the petitioner under rule 56(2) of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 Amended 2021 for illegal generation of E-Challan through his User ID by which 13663.77 MT of sand was illegally excavated from other places and subsequently excavated sand was sold which comes under the ambit of illegal Mining and also caused damage to the environment.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ for direction to the respondent authorities to give permission for mining on Cluster-61 (Sobh Sand Ghat), Gaya for further 26 days because the petitioner had having permission of mining on the said Ghat for the period of 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023, but vide annexure-01 the User I.D of the petitioner was on blocked by the respondents 06.03.2023 and after that the petitioner did not do any mining operation on the said Ghat since 06.03.2023 till 31.03.2023 which caused heavy financial loss to the petitioner or an alternative the respondent authorities to refund the amount of 26 days mining which has already been deposited to the respondent authorities by the petitioner.

4. That the Bihar State Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred as BSMC) had published a tender for selection of contractors for operation of sand Ghats/Cluster in the District of Gaya in year 2022 in which petitioner's firm namely "M/s Siyaram Construction" had participated in a tender process for sand Ghats bearing cluster 61 Gaya.

5. That the reserve price of cluster 61 Gaya was Rs.

54,96,168.00/- against which petitioner's firm had quoted 60,45,785.00/- and petitioner's firm declared successful bidder consequently a work order was issued vide letter No. 25 dated 04.01.2023 and subsequently on 06.01.2023 the petitioner started mining on the Cluster-61 Sobh Sand Ghats, Gaya.

6. That after deposit of the first installment by the petitioner's firm, mining activities and sell of sand was started. Subsequently petitioner's firm also deposited the second installment of royalty.

7. That all of sudden on 06.03.2023 the user ID of the petitioner was arbitrarily blocked by the respondent corporation and after enquiry on 13.03.2023 the petitioner came to know that vide letter No. 398 dated 06.03.2023 issued to one Dhiraj Kumar who was the previous concession holder of the said Sand Ghats, the User ID of the petitioner have been blocked for the allegation by Misusing his User ID illegally extracted 13,663.77 MT of sand from other place and for that Rs. 1,81,72,195/- has been imposed to him and also petitioner was directed to deposit the same within

24 hours in the