Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1741 (ALL)

Pradeep Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2023-07-20

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : The petitioner was granted a licence for storage of sand under The Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2018, (hereinafter referred to as the 2018 Rules) on 21.5.2020 for the period starting on 21.5.2020 and ending on 20.5.2021. During the subsistence of the licence on 25.8.2020 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that he had stored the sand (minerals) not on his own land but on another plot No. 362 which belonged to some other tenure holders and, therefore, it was alleged that he had violated the conditions of the lease. It was also alleged that the mineral found during inspection was beyond the capacity allocated to the petitioner under the licence. 2. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice/charges on 7.9.2020 and denied the charges leveled against him. When an order cancelling the licence and imposing penalty was passed on 30.9.2020, the petitioner filed an appeal and when the appeal was also dismissed on 17.8.2021, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the two orders primarily on the following grounds: I. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Rule 10 of the 2018 Rules after the show-cause notice was issued, the petitioner had replied. The District Magistrate not being satisfied with the show-cause notice had to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and he could only thereafter cancel the licence and impose penalty. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not given any personal hearing. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even the reply to the show-cause notice which was given on 7.9.2020 was not considered inasmuch as the petitioner had denied the allegation, but the ex parte allegations were believed to be correct. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that if there was any contravention of the licence and if licence was cancelled, the maximum penalty of Rs. 5 lacs could be imposed only after giving specific reasons for doing so. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no reason had been given for having imposed the maximum penalty. There was, in fact, no loss to the exchequer of the State Government yet the maximum penalty had been imposed. 5 lacs could be imposed only after giving specific reasons for doing so. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no reason had been given for having imposed the maximum penalty. There was, in fact, no loss to the exchequer of the State Government yet the maximum penalty had been imposed. For imposing such a huge amount of penalty reasons ought to have been provided in the order, which is absolutely silent vis-a-vis the reasons. IV. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the price of the minerals alongwith the royalty could have been recovered from the petitioner but learned counsel states that the price had been fixed very arbitrarily by whimsically multiplying the royalty amount by five and this, learned counsel for the petitioner states, did not have any basis. He thus submits that fixation of the price in this manner was neither supported by any statute nor was the calculation in this manner provided by any Government Order. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, however, in reply has submitted that the show-cause notice, when was replied to, was considered in its entirety and, thereafter, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty as had been provided under the Rule 13 of the 2018 Rules. He further submitted that since the price of the minerals had to recovered from the petitioner, therefore, the price had been fixed as five times the royalty and, therefore, learned Standing Counsel states that there was no error in the order. He further submitted that when the reply had been considered then there was no requirement of giving any personal hearing. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by the Birendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that before the order dated 30.9.2020 was passed by the District Magistrate, Bhadohi, it was not preceded by any personal hearing as was compulsorily required by Rule 10 of the 2018 Rules. The Court also finds that the Rule 13 of the 2018 Rules though provides for the imposition of a maximum penalty of Rs. five lacs but no reason had been given for the imposition of the maximum penalty. No loss to the exchequer of the State Government was enumerated and yet the maximum penalty had been imposed. The Court also finds that the Rule 13 of the 2018 Rules though provides for the imposition of a maximum penalty of Rs. five lacs but no reason had been given for the imposition of the maximum penalty. No loss to the exchequer of the State Government was enumerated and yet the maximum penalty had been imposed. The Court thus finds that the imposition of the maximum penalty provided under Rule 13 of the 2018 Rules was erroneous. Further, the Court finds that the calculation of price as had been done by multiplying the royalty by five was not justifiable. The District Magistrate ought to have given reasons for imposing the maximum penalty and also for fixing the price by multiplying the royalty amount by five. 6. Since no hearing was given, no reason was given for imposing the maximum penalty provided and since there was no basis for the calculation of the price, the Court finds that the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. The order dated 30.9.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhadohi, and the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, are, therefore, quashed and set aside. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 8. It shall be, however, open for the respondents to decide the matter afresh after giving personal hearing to the petitioner.