Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 177 (GAU)

Kailash Jalan v. State of Assam

2022-02-22

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Forest Department and Mr. Deori, learned State counsel. 2. The petitioner was settled with a mining permit area of Dilli River Stone Quarry for the period of 2016-18 with effect from 28.1.2016 for a total quantity of 5000 Cu.M of stone at the offered price of Rs. 5,55,123. Alleging that the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation, Namrup raised the height of a concrete wall constructed in the mining area which led to stoppage the flow of water throughout the year for which the petitioner could not extract any stone from river bed and accordingly petitioner made several representation before the respondent authorities highlighting the difficulties faced by the petitioner in extraction of stones from the mining area. However, according to the petitioner such representation remained un-addressed and finally by order dated 16.12.2020 it was intimated to the petitioner that his request is not tenable. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a review petition before the competent authority for review of the earlier order dated 16.12.2020. However, the respondent No. 4 by way of the order dated 19.6.2021 terminated the contract and debarred the petitioner from granting any fresh permit area/mineral concession area in the state for a period of five years and further holding that the petitioner is not eligible to participate in the bid process with effect from date of the issue of the said order. Further the amount of Rs. 80,690, the 25% of the security money deposited in the course of settlement was directed to be forfeited. Such order dated 19.6.2021 is challenged in die present writ petition. 4. The basic ground challenge by the petitioner is the violation of principle of natural justice. According to the petitioner without any notice he has been black listed and/or debarred from participating in future tender processes for a period of five years as well as directed to forfeit the amount of money. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this is in blatant violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. The principle of natural justice mandates that a reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any action against him. The adjudicating authority must disclose all the material placed before it and must give reasonable opportunity to the affected interest to submit his/their case. 5. The principle of natural justice mandates that a reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any action against him. The adjudicating authority must disclose all the material placed before it and must give reasonable opportunity to the affected interest to submit his/their case. A fair hearing means that a person against whom an adverse order is passed should be informed of the charges against him giving him opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges and the person is also have a right to know the material on the basis of which the allegation is proposed to be decide. 6. In the case in hand, admittedly, before passing the order impugned, the allegation was not disclosed, to the petitioner and he was also not asked for any reply from his side to put his rebuttal to the allegation of violation of the terms of the settlement. 7. Mr. Gogoi submits that the department has decided to revisit the matter as there are lapses in issuing this order and the department has decided to initiate a fresh proceeding as per the Rules and following due process of principle of natural justice. 8. This court is of the view that the impugned order has been issued without following the principle of natural justice. In view of the fair submission of Mr. Gogoi and finding of this court the impugned order dated 19.6.2021 is set aside and quashed. However, a liberty is granted to the respondent authority to proceed afresh if so advised. 9. In the above terms, this writ petition is disposed of, however no order as to cost.