JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter No. 1231/Khanan/Jamshedpur, dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur, directed the petitioner-company to pay Rs. 55,62,000/- (Rs. Fifty five lacs sixty two thousand) within a period of 15 days, failing which steps would be taken for filing of the certificate case for recovery of the said amount. The petitioner has also challenged the letter no. 699, dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, directing the petitioner to produce documents regarding purchase of minerals and transportation challans, failing which the petitioner-company would be liable to pay Rs. 55,62,000/- as royalty at the rate of twice the market value of the minerals in addition of lodging the F.I.R. and confiscation of the minerals in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-company is a subsidiary company of M/s. Tata Steel Company Ltd. and has been created for providing civic amenities to the residents of Jamshedpur like supply of electricity, water and planning of the Town and keeping and maintaining the gardens and construction of road in the township . It is further submitted that the petitioner has its baching plant near Tisco Tube Division at P.O. and P.S. Burmamines, Jamshedpur for mixing the minor minerals for primarily utilizing the products thereof for the construction of the roads, quarters of Tata Steel employees, etc. The petitioner used to purchase stone chips from the dealers which are registered under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rule, 2007 and is not engaged in excavation of any minor mineral as it has not been granted any lease for the purpose of excavation of minerals under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (as amended). Surprisingly, the District Mining Officer vide letter No. 699, dated 29.03.2017 informed the petitioner to produce documents relating to purchase of minerals and transportation challans, failing which, the petitioner-company would be liable to pay Rs. 55,62,000/- being twice the market value of the minerals in question otherwise first information report would be lodged and the minerals would be confiscated. The said letter No. 699 dated 29.03.2017 was never made available to the petitioner, otherwise it would have replied the said letter on time. 55,62,000/- being twice the market value of the minerals in question otherwise first information report would be lodged and the minerals would be confiscated. The said letter No. 699 dated 29.03.2017 was never made available to the petitioner, otherwise it would have replied the said letter on time. However, the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter No. 1231, dated 17.07.2017 again directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 55,62,000/- along with 24% of the interest within fifteen days, as according to the said authority, the petitioner did not submit reply to the letter No. 699, dated 29.03.2017 and thereby admitted its unlawful act of illegal storage of minerals and its trading. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the letter No. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 has been issued by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in haste without making available the copy of the letter no. 699 dated 29.03.2017 and waiting for appropriate reply to be submitted by the petitioner. In fact, the letter no. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 itself was received by the petitioner on 20th July 2017. The petitioner thereafter submitted its representation along with the relevant documents as demanded vide letter dated 29.03.2017, issued by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. It is most arbitrary on the part of the respondent no. 3 to issue demand of Rs. 55,62,000/- without making any factual and legal determination with regard to the alleged violation of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (as amended) and Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules 2007. 4. J.C. to learned A.G. while opposing the petitioner's contention submits that since the petitioner did not submit the reply to the notice dated 29.03.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 on time, the letter contained in memo no. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 was issued by the respondent no. 3 making demand of Rs. 55,62,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of appeal and revision provided under rules 11 and 12 of the Jharkhand Mineral Dealers Rules, 2007 respectively. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of impugned letter no. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 it appears that the demand of Rs. 55,62,000/- along with 24% interest has been issued by the respondent no. 3 without making any factual and legal determination as to how the said authority arrived at the figure of Rs.55,62,000/-. On perusal of impugned letter no. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 it appears that the demand of Rs. 55,62,000/- along with 24% interest has been issued by the respondent no. 3 without making any factual and legal determination as to how the said authority arrived at the figure of Rs.55,62,000/-. It is a settled law that any administrative/quasi judicial authority while passing any order or issuing the letter adversely affecting the right of a person by raising pecuniary demand should take the said action judiciously after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 has already held thus :- 221. It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. This principle was laid down by this Court in the State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 in the following words: “The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed: it need not be shown to be superadded. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.” 222. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.” 222. In England, the rule was thus expressed by Byles, J. in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works reported in (1883) 14 CB NS 180 : 1861-72 All ER Rep Ext 1554” “The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’ (says God), ‘where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the same question was put to Eve also.” Reiterating the same principle The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahara India (Firm) (1) v. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 151 has recently held in paragraph no. 19 :- 19. “Thus, it is trite that unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of principles of natural justice, because in that event the court would not ignore the legislative mandate, the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made, is generally read into the provisions of a statute, particularly when the order has adverse civil consequences for the party affected. The principle will hold good irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial.” 6. The letter dated 17.07.2017 suggests that the said authority only took note of the fact that no reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner against the notice/letter no. 699 dated 29.03.2017 and consequently the demand of Rs. 55,62,000/- along with 24% interest over the same has been raised against the petitioner. The said letter dated 17.07.2017 is cryptic and unreasoned and therefore the same cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, the letter no. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 55,62,000/- along with 24% interest over the same has been raised against the petitioner. The said letter dated 17.07.2017 is cryptic and unreasoned and therefore the same cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, the letter no. 1231 dated 17.07.2017 issued by the respondent no. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 and the representative of petitioner is directed to appear before the said authority in pursuance of the notice/letter no. 699 dated 29.03.2017 within a period of three weeks from today along with the reply supported by the relevant documents. The respondent no. 3 in turn shall pass appropriate speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks thereafter. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in view of aforesaid observation and direction.