Judgment [Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice) 1. Heard Mr. P.S. Adhikarl, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. In this. a writ petition, the petitioner, who was licensee In respect of Khasra No. 1073, 1075,1086 and 1088; challenges the cancellation of his permit, which was for the. purposes of excavating the minor- minerals. These survey numbers belonged to the petitioner. The said excavation' permit from the land was recommended on 11-06-2003 and was granted on 08-08-2003 and thereafter, it was amended by another order on 11-09-2003 and this period was for three -years. 3. There were some complaints and more particularly, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat dated 12-12-2003 that the said permission holder i.e. the petitioner was committing breach of the conditions of the excavation permit and therefore, a show-cause notice was sent to the petitioner on 20-12-2003. In this notice dated 20-12-2003, it was pointed out that the petitioner was excavating in an illegal manner from the area outside the one, which was granted to him and that he was excavating sand and the boulders. It was also pointed out to him that in the area granted to him, he has, in fact, taken agricultural crops of wheat etc. By way of the second reason, it was informed to him that when this illegal excavation was intercepted, the servants of the petitioner were engaging in violence with the concerned Government officials and servants. 4. It seems that a second show-cause notice was also given again vide show-cause notice dated 12-04-2004. In this show-cause notice also, it has been alleged that the Revenue Inspector, Barakote had, in his inspection report dated 31-03-2004, informed the authorities that the petitioner was excavating, in an illegal manner, the minor minerals not from the permitted area of Champawat district, but from the area coming in Pithoragarh district and more particularly, in its village Radikhuti and that this excavation was being done with the help of the Shaktimaan trucks. His explanation was, therefore, called within three days. To this notice, the petitioner gave a reply by his communication dated 12-04-2004, in which he accepted that he was permitted to excavate the land, area being 11 Nali and 12 Muthi for three years. His explanation was, therefore, called within three days. To this notice, the petitioner gave a reply by his communication dated 12-04-2004, in which he accepted that he was permitted to excavate the land, area being 11 Nali and 12 Muthi for three years. In paragraph 2, it was asserted that the Revenue Inspector had not inspected the area, which was excavated. It is, then, suggested, further, that the reference to Shaktimaan trucks as also to Radikhuti village was made only by the complaint. It was, then, asserted that the minor minerals excavation from village Radikhuti, District Pithoragarh was done in pursuance of the permission granted for the same to one Meena Airi W/o Kashi Singh Airi and that this permit was given to her for construction of a private house. In paragraph 3, it was explained that Smt. Meena Airi had applied for this permit on 28-02-2004 and the permit was to remain in force upto 11-032004 and that in this permit, the said mineral was permitted to be brought from village Radikhuti, district Pithoragarh by trucks. It is, then, accepted that during this period, six trucks of minor minerals were excavated and the said material was deposited in the field of one Kedar Singh and therefore, the petitioner had not, in any manner, breached the conditions. 5. It seems that on this basis an inquiry went on and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. Mr. P.S. Adhikari, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that the impugned order was passed without considering the material on record and without realising that the petitioner was an honest person, who was excavating the minor minerals strictly in terms of the permission granted in that behalf. He also, very forcefully, submitted that the findings in that order are totally without any basis. 7. As against this, Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned Government pleader points out that even after the notices were sent to the petitioner, there were fresh inspections made by the revenue authorities and in those fresh inspections, it was found that the whole land, which was allotted for being excavated, was nothing but a field of wheat, where there was a clear evidence available that the wheat was harvested from that field. From this, Mr. From this, Mr. J.P. Joshi points out that what was being done by the petitioner was that under the garb of the afore-mentioned permission the petitioner used to excavate from some other areas and used to sell minor minerals by taking transport permits for the same. The learned Government pleader goes on, further, to say that on the inspection dated 18th April, 2004, it was found that in this field, there were no minor minerals available, at all and, therefore, it was obvious that on the basis of some incorrect reports by the local Patwari, it was misrepresented that these fields had some minor minerals, which could be excavated and on that basis, the permit was granted and taking the advantage of the permit, the petitioner used to excavate from the other areas of village Radikhuti, district Pithoragarh, 8. On the basis of these rival contentions, we examined the order. The order, clearly, suggests that there was an inspection taken by the revenue authorities after the show-cause notice was issued and after the explanation of the petitioner was received by the authorities. The authorities have found that the whole land of 11 Nali and 12 Muthi comprised in Survey No. 1073, 1075, 1086 and 1088 was nothing, but an agricultural field, in which the petitioner had harvested the crop of wheat. There is an observation that in these khasra numbers, presently, there was no minor minerals nor was any such minor minerals available in these khasra numbers even in the past. It is, further, pointed out that though the so-called permit was granted, there was no marking of the area. There Is, of course, no reference to the plea raised by the petitioner that what he was transporting and excavating was the material of Smt. Meena Airi. A further finding is recorded that the petitioner had, from time to time, removed the minor minerals from the area of river Sarayu, which fell in the forest division of Pithoragarh, which is a river, which separates district Champawat from district Pithoragarh. On this basis, ultimately, the authority concerned being the District Magistrate /Collector, Champawat has cancelled the permit. 9. It is obvious that there was some excavation being made by the petitioner. On this basis, ultimately, the authority concerned being the District Magistrate /Collector, Champawat has cancelled the permit. 9. It is obvious that there was some excavation being made by the petitioner. The petitioner has owned up in his explanation that the excavation was done in pursuance of a permission granted to Smt. Meena Airi W/o Kashi Singh Airi and that was done by him. He has also accepted the extent of the excavation done. Therefore, it is clear that the fact of the petitioner, having excavated from some other land, in respect of which he did not have any rights or a permission from the concerned authority, is an established one. We are, therefore, left with an issue as to whether the petitioner was justified in excavating without any permission. On this backdrop, we will test the argument raised that he was doing the work of Smt. Meena Airi. 10. Barring his own word in the affidavit, there is nothing on record to suggest that there existed any such agreement between Meena Airi and the petitioner. Even if it is presumed that Smt. Meena Airi had the permission to excavate the riverbed, we do not understand as to how she was justified in engaging the services of the petitioner and whether that was done with the prior intimation to the concerned authorities. There is absolutely nothing on the record to suggest that there existed any such agreement between Smt. Meena Airi and the petitioner. We are, therefore, not impressed by the plea of the petitioner that he was excavating the riverbed on the basis of the permission granted to Smt. Meena Airi: Once it is established that the petitioner was doing some excavation, which fact is admitted by him, then, it is up to him to explain as to what was the justification for doing it. We have already held that his justification is not acceptable. 11. This leaves another question that it has been found that the land, in respect of which, the excavation permission has been granted to the petitioner, was found as a field. It is reported that the complete land was under the agricultural operations. We fail to understand as to how the excavation permission could be granted In relation to a field and how was the petitioner using the said land for the agricultural purposes. Mr. It is reported that the complete land was under the agricultural operations. We fail to understand as to how the excavation permission could be granted In relation to a field and how was the petitioner using the said land for the agricultural purposes. Mr. P.S. Adhikari, the learned senior counsel invited out attention to a communication dated 12-08-2004. In this communication, which is sent by a Geologist called Anil Kumar to the District Magistrate, Champawat, it Is explained that In the fields bearing Survey No. 1073, 1075, 1086 and 1088, there was some minor minerals available under the layer of earth the depth of, which would be 0.20 meters. It is suggested, further, that these deposits have been collected there because of the increase in the water level of the concerned river From this, the learned counsel wanted to suggest that when the permission was granted to excavate minor minerals, he had collected the minor minerals from the land and thereafter, when the said land was again filled up with earth, he utilised the same for the agricultural operations and to take wheat crop. 12. The argument is extremely attractive, however, lacks the substance for the simple reason that this petitioner was found to be excavating (allegedly' on behalf of Smt. Meena Airi) not in 2003, but somewhere in February or March, 2004 and on the days when he was found to be excavating and the reports were made to the revenue authorities, there was already the standing wheat crop in the field. We have already pointed out that the story of agreement with Smt. Meena Airi is a myth. The plea that he excavated the minerals and then, because of the raising of the water level in the river, the whole excavated area was turned into an agricultural field, appears to be far fetched. We do not understand as to how this communication was secured much after the lease was cancelled. This communication is dated 12-08-2004, while the lease has been cancelled in May, 2004, itself. The report seems to have been called by the District Magistrate on 27th July, 2004 and perhaps, as an answer to this communication by the District Magistrate, the said communication seems to have been signed. This communication is dated 12-08-2004, while the lease has been cancelled in May, 2004, itself. The report seems to have been called by the District Magistrate on 27th July, 2004 and perhaps, as an answer to this communication by the District Magistrate, the said communication seems to have been signed. We have already said that we are not, at ail, impressed by this and in our opinion, the field if was excavated could not be used for the agricultural purposes. 13. What appears to be the scheme from the whole affair is to obtain an excavation license In respect of the field and then, to start the excavation operations from the other areas. When we see the actual situation, It seems that the excavation permission was on the Champawat side of the river while the excavation has been made from the Pithoragarh side of the river. We are not, at ail, impressed by the argument at the Bar that the petitioner, firstly, was excavating on behalf of Smt. Meena Airi or that he had already excavated in 2003 from the permitted field and after that the field became available for agricultural operations. There is nothing on .record to prove that the said field was ever excavated. It seems that on the basis of the permit, petitioner only continued with clandestine digging of other areas. 14. At the stage of the arguments, the learned senior counsel Mr. P.S. Adhikari offered to supplement the plea with an affidavit of Smt. Meena Airi. It is found that the matter Is pending for quite sometime. There are number of affidavits and the counter affidavits "filed, however, Smt. Meena Airi’s affidavit has not been flied. It would be, therefore, futile at this stage to permit Smt. Meena Airi to file an affidavit and even if she is permitted to file the affidavit, that would be of no consequence because all that would be an after thought 15. Lastly, the learned counsel pointed out that he was not given any opportunity and the concerned officers, probably, took the inspections and decided the matter without giving him any opportunity. From the in Section, report, itself, as well as from the order, it is apparent that the petitioner, himself, was present at the time of spot Inspection. Lastly, the learned counsel pointed out that he was not given any opportunity and the concerned officers, probably, took the inspections and decided the matter without giving him any opportunity. From the in Section, report, itself, as well as from the order, it is apparent that the petitioner, himself, was present at the time of spot Inspection. This IS apart from the fact that on record we find a full explanation offered by the petitioner by way of a reply to the show-cause notice. In our opinion, therefore, the principles of natural justice halve, been adhered to by the concerned authority. 16. During the debate, it was pointed out by Mr. J.P. Joshi the learned counsel for the Government that there was a remedy for the petitioner by way of revision to the State Government under rule 78 of the U.P Minor & Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. During the debate, we offered that opportunity to the learned senior counsel, however, It was declined and hence the debate was carried out further. 17. In short, we do writ petition is dismissed not find any substance in this writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed.