The Allahabad High Court while setting aside an order of blacklisting and cancellation of mining lease passed against the petitioner, observed that in a civilized society if the rule of law has to be there then the principles of natural justice should compulsorily be followed.
The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar B Saraf passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company.
The petitioner was granted a mining lease for 10 years commencing from 15.7.2016 and ending on 14.7.2026 for the purpose of mining and crushing stone. The petitioner for the purposes of conveyance etc. was also issued Form – MM-11 and regularly OTPs were provided for effective use of the MM-11 Forms.
On 17.7.2023, while the petitioner was still operating his mines as per the mining lease dated 15.7.2016 he received a notice on his E-mail Id where the allegation was that illegal mining had been done by him outside the area for which the mining lease was granted and, therefore, he had violated the Rules 3 and 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021.This notice itself had raised a demand of Rs 1,70,06,000/-. As the petitioner was finding the notice arbitrary, he filed the petition.
The petitioner, it has been averred in the petition which was amended after 10.8.2023 that the petitioner had served the order of this Court along with the reply on the District Magistrate. It has been stated that after the order dated 10.8.2023 was loaded on the website of the High Court on 11.8.2023, he could serve the order only on 14.8.2023 as 12.8.2023 was a second Saturday and 13.8.2023 was a Sunday.
It has been stated that on 14.8.2023 the District Magistrate did not accept the reply and informed the petitioner that since an order had already been passed on 14.8.2023 vis-a-vis the notice dated 17.7.2023 and the lease of the petitioner had been cancelled along with the order of blacklisting for two years, there was no requirement to take the reply. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an amendment application which was allowed. The order dated 14.8.2023, thus, is also challenged in this writ petition.
On 5.10.2023 when it was brought to the notice of the Court that the order of cancellation of the lease of the petitioner had been passed on 14.8.2023 without considering the reply, the Court had directed the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, to file his personal affidavit. It may be stated that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Court the fact that after the order dated 10.8.2023 was passed, the petitioner had made all efforts to file the reply as early as possible.
In fact, in the petition it has been categorically explained why the order of the Court was served only on 14.8.2023. It has been informed by the petitioner that when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the District Magistrate on 14.8.2023 itself had passed the order, he had challenged the same on the ground that the order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that none of the averments made in the reply which the petitioner had given to the show cause notice had been considered by the District Magistrate.
In fact, he submits that under no circumstance could the reply of the petitioner have been considered as the District Magistrate saw to it that the order was passed before the petitioner could submit its reply.
He has submitted that the order dated 10.8.2023 must have been communicated to the District Magistrate as the District Magistrate was very much represented through the Standing Counsel. However, very malafidely the impugned order was passed.
Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted that the Court may set aside the impugned order as the same had been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
In reply, Standing Counsel, however, has supported the order of the District Magistrate and he has submitted that the petitioner was a chronic trespasser. He also made the Court go through the impugned order and has submitted that even if the petitioner was not heard there were suitable reasons given in the order itself for cancelling the lease of the petitioner.
“Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that if the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to place his side of the case and if the principles of natural justice were violated then the Court, without going into the actual order can set aside the same. This is also the view of the Supreme Court in the judgement reported in 1970 (1) SCC 121 : The Board of High School and intermediate Education, U.P and others vs Kumari Chitra Srivastava and others. The very fact, therefore, that the principles of natural justice were not complied with is sufficient enough for the Court to intervene and set aside the order impugned. It may seem to a few that the observance of the principles of natural justice is a cumbersome process but we do find that in a civilized society if the rule of law has to be there then the principles of natural justice should compulsorily be followed.
From what has been stated above, we definitely find that the principles of natural justice were grossly violated. We find that the order of this Court dated 10.8.2023 was very clear to the effect that the petitioner had to reply to the notice. This order was passed in the presence of the Standing Counsel yet the District Magistrate had absolutely, not only flouted the order of the Court but had also, not cared to wait to get a reply from the petitioner. Therefore, we have no other option but to set aside the order impugned dated 14.8.2023″, the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“Under such circumstances, the order dated 14.8.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, is set aside.
The petitioner may now submit his reply afresh within a period of one week and, thereafter, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, the District Magistrate shall adjudicate, following the principles laid down in Ranveer Singh (supra), on the reply of the petitioner within the next one month.
The petitioner be allowed to function so far as the lease vis-avis his land is concerned. For that purpose OTPs be generated for making Form MM-11 functional with immediate effect”, the Court ordered.