# M/S Jhv Steel Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4537 of 2022
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-jhv-steel-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49956
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Mining - Illegal Mining -
Uttar
Pradesh
Minor
Minerals
(Concessions) Rules, 1963 - Rules 58, 60
& 67 - Consequences of non-payment of
royalty
rent
or
other
dues-
State
Government may terminate the mining
lease after serving a notice on the lessee
to pay within thirty days of the receipt of
the notice any amount due to the State
Government if it was not paid within
fifteen days next after the date fixed for
such payment - in the instant case thirty
days from the date of notice expired on
11.05.2021 and fifteen days beyond the
said date expired on 26.05.2021, however
the order of cancellation was passed on
26.4.2021
before
the
expiry
of
the
statutory period - Rule 58 flagrantly
violated
by
the
respondents
in
cancellation of the lease - Cancellation
order set aside(Para 30)
B. Civil Law - Mining - Illegal Mining -
Uttar
Pradesh
Minor
Minerals
(Concessions) Rules, 1963, Rule 58, 60, 67
- Consequences of contravention of rules
and conditions of lease - If the allegations
are of illegal mining beyond the leased
area, the inspection report must provide
the GPS coordinates of both the inspected
area and the area beyond the lease
alleged to have been illegally mined - It
must be established that illegal mining
had, in fact, been done on area beyond the
leased area (Para 19, 23)
C. Civil Law - Illegal Mining - cancellation
of the Mining lease licenses - Violation of
Principles of Natural Justice - show cause
notice issued to the petitioner contained
only allegations of illegal mining recorded
by the inspection team - culpability of the
petitioner was decided solely on the
inspection report, however, the inspection
report
was
never
supplied
to
the
petitioner - inquiry proceedings were
conducted
in
clear
violation
of
the
principles of natural justice, severely
prejudicing the petitioner's defense - No
other
evidence
or
statements
were
recorded during the inquiry, and no
documents were taken on record - the
inspection report did not mention when
and where the inspection was carried out,
who was present, or whether it was
conducted at the location allotted to the
petitioner - there was no mention of GPS
coordinates used for identifying the plot -
There was no sufficient and cogent
material linking the petitioner to the
charge of illegal mining - cancellation
order passed by the District Magistrate,
without application of any mind at the
dictates of the higher authority i.e. of
Director,
Mining
and
Geology
-
the
grounds / defence taken by the petitioner
in
the
reply
have
not
even
been
considered either by the appellate or
revisional
authority
rendering
the
impugned order illegal and arbitrary (Para
20, 23, 24)
D. Civil Law - Illegal Mining - cancellation
of the Mining lease licenses - Bias - Dr.
Roshan Jacob, who was the Director,
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
Geology and Mining directed the District
Magistrate
to
proceed
against
the
petitioner and to cancel his mining lease,
which
order
was
duly
complied
-
subsequently she herself as the revisional
authority,
against
the
order
of
cancellation
of
the
mining
lease,
proceeded to hear and reject the revision -
Held Revisional order hit by the vice of
bias (Para 27)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,948 of 45,020. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39948 for what follows._

278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nullity and does not confer any right, title
or authority upon the petitioners.

22. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, petition being
devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 278
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 4537 of 2022

M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushpila Bisht

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Tushar Verma

A. Civil Law - Mining - Illegal Mining -
Uttar
Pradesh
Minor
Minerals
(Concessions) Rules, 1963 - Rules 58, 60
& 67 - Consequences of non-payment of
royalty
rent
or
other
dues-
State
Government may terminate the mining
lease after serving a notice on the lessee
to pay within thirty days of the receipt of
the notice any amount due to the State
Government if it was not paid within
fifteen days next after the date fixed for
such payment - in the instant case thirty
days from the date of notice expired on
11.05.2021 and fifteen days beyond the
said date expired on 26.05.2021, however
the order of cancellation was passed on
26.4.2021
before
the
expiry
of
the
statutory period - Rule 58 flagrantly
violated
by
the
respondents
in
cancellation of the lease - Cancellation
order set aside(Para 30)
B. Civil Law - Mining - Illegal Mining -
Uttar
Pradesh
Minor
Minerals
(Concessions) Rules, 1963, Rule 58, 60, 67
- Consequences of contravention of rules
and conditions of lease - If the allegations
are of illegal mining beyond the leased
area, the inspection report must provide
the GPS coordinates of both the inspected
area and the area beyond the lease
alleged to have been illegally mined - It
must be established that illegal mining
had, in fact, been done on area beyond the
leased area (Para 19, 23)
C. Civil Law - Illegal Mining - cancellation
of the Mining lease licenses - Violation of
Principles of Natural Justice - show cause
notice issued to the petitioner contained
only allegations of illegal mining recorded
by the inspection team - culpability of the
petitioner was decided solely on the
inspection report, however, the inspection
report
was
never
supplied
to
the
petitioner - inquiry proceedings were
conducted
in
clear
violation
of
the
principles of natural justice, severely
prejudicing the petitioner's defense - No
other
evidence
or
statements
were
recorded during the inquiry, and no
documents were taken on record - the
inspection report did not mention when
and where the inspection was carried out,
who was present, or whether it was
conducted at the location allotted to the
petitioner - there was no mention of GPS
coordinates used for identifying the plot -
There was no sufficient and cogent
material linking the petitioner to the
charge of illegal mining - cancellation
order passed by the District Magistrate,
without application of any mind at the
dictates of the higher authority i.e. of
Director,
Mining
and
Geology
-
the
grounds / defence taken by the petitioner
in
the
reply
have
not
even
been
considered either by the appellate or
revisional
authority
rendering
the
impugned order illegal and arbitrary (Para
20, 23, 24)
D. Civil Law - Illegal Mining - cancellation
of the Mining lease licenses - Bias - Dr.
Roshan Jacob, who was the Director,
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
Geology and Mining directed the District
Magistrate
to
proceed
against
the
petitioner and to cancel his mining lease,
which
order
was
duly
complied
-
subsequently she herself as the revisional
authority,
against
the
order
of
cancellation
of
the
mining
lease,
proceeded to hear and reject the revision -
Held Revisional order hit by the vice of
bias (Para 27)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. & ors., 2017
(1) ADJ 240

2. Mustafa Vs U.O.I., (2022) 1 SCC 294

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Rakesh Bajpai, learned Standing counsel,
Sri Tushar Verma, Special Counsel and Sri
Ramesh Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate
General for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 29.6.2022 passed by the State
Government thereby rejecting the revision
preferred by the petitioner against the
cancellation of mining lease vide order
dated
26.4.2021
passed
by
District
Magistrate, Banda.

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

3. The facts in brief necessary for
adjudication of the present case are that the
petitioner in response to an e-tender/eauction for mining participated in the
auction and his bid was adjudged to be the
highest and lease deed was executed in
favor of the petitioner on 1.6.2020 for the
period from 1.6.2020 to 31.5.2025. After
execution of the mining lease the petitioner
started mining operations but suddenly the
One Time Password (O.T.P.) was stopped
by the District Magistrate, Banda on
19.3.2021. Subsequently, it is stated that an
inspection was conducted by a team of
officers of the Directorate, Mining and
Geology, Uttar Pradesh between 13.3.2021
and 18.3.2021 and some allegations with
regard to the irregularities pertaining to
illegal mining were found correct and on
the basis of the aforesaid inspection report
a show cause notice was served on the
petitioner on 22.3.2021. According to the
said show cause notice issued by the
District
Magistrate,
Banda
it
was
mentioned
that
an
inspection
was
conducted by a team where it has been
found that the petitioner is involved in
illegal mining and he has extracted minor
minerals from the area not allotted to him
and extracted mineral to a depth which was
not permissible as per the lease deed.
Accordingly, a notice was given as to why
the lease be not cancelled. In the said show
cause notice, penalty for the same offence
has also been fixed as Rs.50,000/- and
recovery of royalty for an amount of
Rs.10,39,68,500/- has also been proposed.

4. The petitioner in pursuance of the
aforesaid show cause notice submitted
reply on 30.3.2021 where it has denied the
allegations leveled in the show cause notice
and has stated that apart from the show
cause notice no material was provided to
the petitioner as directed by this Court in
the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 240 passed in
writ C No.51986 of 2016 and further
submitted that there was no credible
evidence in support of the allegations and,
hence, requested for setting aside the show
cause notice.
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. After considering the reply of the
petitioner the District Magistrate by means
of its order dated 26th April, 2021 has
cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner.
While rejecting the reply of the petitioner
the District Magistrate has recorded that the
petitioner has extracted minor minerals
from an area not allotted to him and
extracted
1,15,465
cubic
feet
of
sand/maurang illegally which fact has been
reported by the Mining Officer in its report
dated 12.11.2020. He has further noticed
that the petitioner was asked to deposit the
amount of royalty of Rs.10,39,68,500/- but
even the said amount has not been
deposited by the petitioner and accordingly
he was of the view that the said outstanding
amount needs to be recovered from the
petitioner along with penalty as provided
under Rule 41(H)(1) and 59 (2) of Uttar
Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions)
Rules, 1963. He has further considered the
fact that the Director, Mining and Geology,
Uttar
Pradesh
had
constituted
an
enforcement team for physical inspection
which conducted the spot inspection on
19.3.2021
and
submitted
report
on
19.3.2021 where it was found that the
petitioner had conducted mining operations
of an area 7.555 hect. and extracted
1,88,875 cubic feet of sand beyond the area
allotted to him apart from other illegal
mining alleged in the said order and even
the bank of the river has been extracted to a
depth which is beyond the prescribed limit.
In this regard a first information report was
also lodged against the petitioner.

6. The District Magistrate has relied
upon the inspection report and has stated
that the petitioner could not produce any
evidence or prove his case contrary to the
findings recorded by the inspection team
and, hence, rejected the reply of the
petitioner and proceeded to pass order for
recovery of an amount of Rs.10,39,68,500/-
and also cancelled the lease deed issued in
favour of the petitioner and further placed
him in black list for a period of two years.

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the order of the District Magistrate dated
26th April, 2021 had preferred a revision
before the State Government which has
also been decided and rejected by means of
the impugned order dated 29th June, 2022.
The revisional authority while rejecting the
revision of the petitioner and passing the
impugned order has noticed the fact that an
inspection was carried out on which the
mining lease was granted to the petitioner
and certain allegations have come forth on
the basis of which the show cause notice
was given to the petitioner to which reply
was submitted by him on 30.3.2021. The
reply of the petitioner was not found
satisfactory and merely on account of the
fact that the allegations against the
petitioner
stood
concluded
by
the
inspection team no infirmity was found in
the order of District Magistrate and
accordingly the revision was rejected.

8. The petitioner in the present petition
has assailed the cancellation of the lease
deed as well as revisional order dated 29th
June, 2022 and the recovery as well.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE :-

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has firstly submitted that no proper
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before passing the order of
cancellation and recovery against the
petitioner. In support of his submissions he
has submitted that, in fact, no inspection
was actually carried out and a perusal of
the show cause notice dated 22.3.2021
would indicate that no material including
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281
the copy of inspection report was supplied
to the petitioner along with the show cause
notice and in absence of the relevant
documents and material constituting the
basis of the allegationsagainst the petitioner
the entire proceedings was conducted in
violation of the principles of natural justice
and accordingly the same are illegal and
arbitrary and deserve to be set aside.

10. Learned Standing counsel Sri
Rakesh
Bajpai,
on
the
other
hand,
supporting the impugned orders submitted
that a perusal of the show cause notice
indicates that entire contents of the
inspection report have been reproduced in
the show cause notice. He does not dispute
the fact that copy of the inspection report
dated 19.3.2022 was never supplied to the
petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that the inspection
report and all other relevant documents
have
been
annexed
by
the
State
Government
along
with
the
counter
affidavit. It is further submitted that the
inspection
report
was
submitted
on
19.3.2021 to the Director, Mining and
Geology, Government of Uttar Pradesh
who by means of letter dated 20.3.2021
addressed to the District Magistrate, Banda
forwarded a copy of the inspection report
for proceedings against the petitioner.
Along with the said report he had
categorically given directions to the District
Magistrate to pass orders as mentioned
therein. The name of the petitioner finds
mention at serial No.7 of the said letter
where the District Magistrate was directed
to register F.I.R. against the petitioner,
cancel his mining lease and place his name
in the black list and with regard to the
allegations of illegal mining recovery be
made
from
him.
For
the
sake
of
convenience the directions of the Director
are reproduced as under:-

^^Lohd`r {ks= ls ckgj ,oa lVs [k.M ds
{ks= esa voS/k [kuu rFkk vU; vfu;ferrk ik;s
tkus ij iV~Vs/kkjd ds fo:) FIR ntZ djkrs gq,
fu;ekuqlkj iV~Vk fujLrhdj.k ,oa iV~Vs/kkjd dk
uke dkyh lwph esa Mkyk tk; rFkk voS/k [kuu ds
fo:) iV~Vk/kkjd ls fu;ekuqlkj jktLo {kfr dh
/kujkf'k olwy fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;A**

12. It has also been submitted by the
petitioner that entire proceedings have been
held without any application of mind by the
District Magistrate and from a perusal of
the directions issued by the Director,
Mining
and
Geology,
the
District
Magistrate, who is the subordinate to the
Secretary (Mining and Geology) was duty
bound to comply and, in fact, complied
with the directions and consequently it is a
clear case of bias and non application of
mind by the District Magistrate.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further assailed the impugned orders on
the ground that the inspection was
conducted by Team A with regard to 19
persons who were the lease holders of the
lease licenses issued in their favour and in
pursuance of inspection report dated
19.3.2021 action was taken against all the
19 persons and in all the cases the
directions / dictate of the Director, Mining
and Geology, as contained in his letter
dated 20.3.2021 were duly followed and
complied by the District Magistrate and the
leases of all the persons included in the said
list was cancelled. It is further stated that
against all the cancellation orders the
respective persons had filed revisions
before the State Government which were
again decided by the Director (Mining and
Geology), the same officer who had
authored the letter dated 20.3.2021 in his
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
capacity
as
Secretary
(Mining
and
Geology) of Government of Uttar Pradesh
and rejected all the revisions except the
revision of the revisionist at serial No.16,
namely of VAR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. A
copy of the order passed in Revision
No.128
(R)/SM/2021
filed
by
VAR
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd has been annexed
along with writ petition wherein on the
basis of the same report the revision of
VAR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. has been allowed
holding that the inspection report had clear
infirmity and could not be relied upon and
there is no material to indicate that the
delinquent lease holder had, in fact, was
involved or has indulged in any illegal
mining and in the aforesaid circumstances,
the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
(Mining and Geology) in exercise of the
power of the revisional authority on the
basis of the same material allowed the said
revision vide order dated 24.2.2022.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
claims parity of the order dated 24.2.2022
and submits that the revisional authority
has discriminated against the petitioner in
as much as while considering the revision
in the case of VAR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on
the basis of the same facts and for the same
reason the revision of the petitioner has
been dismissed.

15. Sri Rakesh Bajpai, per contra, has
submitted that due opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner before passing
the impugned orders. He submits that as
per the provisions contained under Rule 60
and 67 of Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
reasonable
opportunity of hearing has to be given to
the
petitioner
before
passing
any
cancellation or blacklisting order. He
submits that the inspection was conducted
by the authority prescribed under the said
Rules and according to the said inspection
it can safely be stated that as per the
inspection report the petitioner was found
to have indulged in illegal mining and,
hence, was subjected to show cause notice
and it is only after receiving the reply to the
said show cause notice that action has been
taken in accordance with the provisions
contained in the said Act for cancellation of
the lease deed and for imposition of the
penalty. He submits that due opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner and
consequently it cannot be said that the
proceedings are dehors the law and thus
supported the entire proceedings as well as
the impugned orders. He has further
vehemently submitted that not providing
copy of the inspection report dated
19.3.2021 has not prejudiced the case of the
petitioner nor prejudice has been caused to
the petitioner by not supplying the inquiry
report and, as such, it cannot be said that
there is any violation of the principles of
natural justice.

DISCUSSION :-

16. I have heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and perused the
record.

17. The State Government after
receiving certain complaints with regard to
illegal mining by various persons in
District Banda proceeded to constitute three
enforcement teams for inspecting various
areas for which the lease was granted for
the purpose of mining. The order dated
12.3.2021 passed by Director, Mining &
Geology, which is on record, indicates that
the said team consisted of three officers
from the same department along with
Surveyor. It is further submitted that the
said teams conducted inspection and
submitted their inspection reports on
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
19.3.2021 to the Director. In the said report
only finding is limited to the extent of area
which has been mined and the quantity of
mineral extracted with regard to each of the
leases has been indicated. It is further
noticed that there is no mention in the said
report as to when the said inspection was
carried out or as to whether the lease
holders were ever informed about the said
inspection or the manner in which the
inspection was carried out are some of the
factors which did not find mention in the
said inspection reports. The inspection
report with regard to each of the license
holders in an extremely cryptic manner has
only recorded that the license holders are
involved
in
illegal
mining
and
the
quantities have been mentioned which have
been illegally extracted by all the lease
holders.

18. Learned Standing counsel, on the
other hand, has stated that the said
inspection was carried out and entries made
in the diary of the surveyorwhich have also
included in the counter affidavit. It is
noticed that only the surveyor has signed
on the report. It is surprising that even if
this
fact
is
accepted
that
certain
irregularities with regard to the petitioner
was found on 17.3.2021 why the remaining
members of inspection team did not sign on
the said survey report is one aspect whose
answer has neither been given by the
respondent in the counter affidavit nor has
been
satisfactorily
responded by
the
Standing
counsel
and,
therefore,
the
inspection itself becomes doubtful. It is on
the basis of the said inspection report which
was submitted to the Secretary, Mining and
Geology that the entire proceedings have
been conducted against the petitioner and
also against all other lease holders. It is
further noticed that as per lease deed dated
1st June, 2020 the petitioner was allotted
following areas:-

fcUnq
v{kkUrj
ns'kkUrj
A
25o37' 23.28" N
80o 16' 58.18" E
B
25o37' 15.62" N
80o 16' 51.93" E
C
25o37' 20.56" N
80o 16' 37.64" E
D
25o37' 34.95" N
80o 16' 43.36" E

19. Further, the said mining area was
described with reference to the other plots
on the North, South, East and West of the
leased area which has been described
therein. It is noticed that the inspection
report only records that the petitioner has
made excavation and extracted minor
minerals from the areas outside the mining
area. It is nowhere mentioned when and
where the inspection was carried out, who
were present during the inspection and
most importantly whether the inspection
was carried out at the location allotted to
the petitioner is also doubtful as the plot is
identifiable by G.P.S. Coordinates and there
is no mention that G.P.S. Coordinates were
used for identification of the plot. These are
the essential facts which go to the root of
the matter. If the allegations against the
petitioner is that they have illegally mined
beyond the leased area then it was the duty
of
the
inquiry
team
to
have
identified/pointed out the same but there is
no attempt to establish the case that illegal
mining had, in fact, been done on area
beyond the leased area. All these facts
should have been given in detail as the
report recorded a finding that the said
extraction have been conducted in the area
beyond the leased area then it should have
been described by giving their coordinates
in the inspection report which was not
done.
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. It is in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances that this Court is of the view
that the allegations against the petitioner
for illegal mining could not be clearly
established and merely stating that large
quantity of the minerals have been
extracted by them would not ipso facto
prove that the petitioner had been involved
in illegal mining. It is the duty of the State
to obtain and produce credible evidence in
support of the allegations to bring home the
charges. The arguments in this regard have
force, specially, relying on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 240
where this Court has held as under:-

"33. Once the liability was to be
fastened on the shoulder of the petitioner,
then it was the obligation of the State to
prove by way of credible evidence
available that it was the petitioner, who
has indulged in illegal mining and in the
said direction, apart from issuing showcause notice, all the evidence that was
sought to be relied upon, i.e., the
incumbents who have carried out the
search and survey and the incumbents
who have come forward to depose against
the petitioner their names ought to have
been disclosed and they ought to have
been produced to support the case of the
State that petitioner, in fact, has indulged
in illegal mining. Not only this, as a part
of process, the petitioner was entitled to
have reasonable opportunity of defending
himself by questioning the veracity of
evidence produced against him and by
adducing his own evidence, if any.
Decision maker is bound to act fairly, as
under the scheme of things provided for
the determination made by him will entail
civil consequences, as qua the person
charged with illegal mining, on charges
being proved, financial liability would be
shouldered and in contra situation, the
State would be at loss."

21. It is further noticed that no
further evidence was adduced during the
proceedings apart from the inspection
report which could indicate that the
petitioner or the other persons were
involved in illegal mining. No evidence
in this regard has either been placed on
record before this Court or during the
course of inquiry conducted by the
respondents culminating into cancellation
of the lease licenses.

NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENT :-

22. With regard to non-supply of the
inspection report in the present case, it is
not disputed that show cause notice
contained only allegations with regard to
illegal mining as recorded by the inspection
team. Copy of the inspection report was
never supplied to the petitioner. Though
there are several judgments including the
judgments cited by the Standing counsel in
the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs.
Government (NCT of Delhi) and others,
(2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 105 where
it has been held that in case inquiry report
is not supplied to the delinquent then the
proceedings would not ipso facto be illegal
and arbitrary and in violation of principles
of natural justice but delinquent will have
to show that prejudice was caused to him
by not supplying a copy of the inquiry
report.

23. It is noticed that in the present case
the proceedings have been conducted
against the petitioner only on the basis of
inspection report. Undisputedly, no other
material was adduced during the said
inquiry nor any evidence or statement was
recorded during the inquiry. No documents
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
were ever taken on record during the said
inquiry and the culpability of the petitioner
with regard to illegal mining and other
allegations has been decided only on the
basis of inspection report. Needless to say
that the inspection report, in the present
circumstances of the case, constitutes an
essential material / document which ought
to have been supplied to the petitioner as
even in the impugned orders the petitioner
has been held guilty of illegal mining
relying upon the inspection report dated
19th March, 2021. Once it is noticed that
action is taken solely on the basis of
inspection report then non supply of the
said report to the person against whom
proceedings
are
to
be
carried
out
necessarily
constitutes
miscarriage
of
justice in as much as he has a right to
receive all the material which constitutes
the charge/allegations against him so as to
adequately respond to the charges and
defend himself effectively, while in the
present case the only material/document on
the basis of which the petitioner has been
proceeded against has not been provided to
him and, hence, it can be safely concluded
that the inquiry proceedings against the
petitioner in this regard are in clear
violation of the principles of natural justice
and the defence of the petitioner has been
severely prejudiced. Even though the sum
and substance of the allegations did find
mention in the show cause notice but
inspection report apart from establishing
the allegations against the petitioner also
does not explain about other aspects as to
how and where (location) the inspection
was conducted, as to in what manner the
inspection
was
undertaken
by
the
committee and as to whether the persons
allegedly involved in the illegal mining
were ever put to notice before conducting
the said inspection, are certain factors
which are very material facts for the
persons, who have been proceeded against
have a right to defend their actions and they
have right to know all material facts and
only thereafter assail the said report. In
absence of inspection report their defence
was seriously prejudiced and as vested
right has been snatched away which
undoubtedly has civil consequences. It is
also not clear from perusal of the records as
to what were the coordinates, where the
inspection was conducted and merely
recording that inquiry was conducted on
the plots on which the lease has been
executed are some of the factors which are
necessarily to be proved by the prosecution
before saddling the delinquent lease holders
with penal consequences like cancellation
of their leases and recovery of penalty. In
the lease the area allotted for mining has
been described with G.P.S. Coordinates
and, therefore, it was incumbent to provide
the G.P.S. Coordinates of the area on which
inspection was carried out and also the
coordinates of area beyond the leased area
on which the petitioner has been alleged to
have illegally mined. In absence of any
cogent material or document the charge of
illegal mining has sought to be proved. This
Court is of the considered view that there
was no sufficient cogent material linking
the petitioner with the charge of illegal
mining and as per the judgment of Ranveer
Singh Vs. State of U.P. (supra), the onus
on the State has not been discharged and
consequently the proceedings against the
petitioner only on the basis of inspection
report is arbitrary.

BIAS :-

24. Apart from violation of the
principles of natural justice, it is further
noticed that the proceedings itself became
doubtful the moment the Director, Geology
& Mining directed the District Magistrate
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to proceed against the lease holders in a
particular manner and to cancel the license
and place them in black list. It would have
been appropriate for the Director, Mining
and Geology to have merely forwarded the
inspection report and direct the competent
authority i.e. the District Magistrate to
proceed in accordance with law after
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing
to the lease holders but by specifically
directing
the
District
Magistrate
to
proceed to cancel the lease of the
petitioner and other similarly situated
persons and put them under the black list,
clearly reveals that the respondents had
premeditated and preordained the result of
the inquiry proceedings which the District
Magistrate obediently complied with and,
hence, the cancellation order has been
passed without application of any mind at
the dictates of the higher authority and a
perusal of the same clearly indicates that
the grounds / defence taken by the
petitioner in the reply have not even been
considered either by the appellate or
revisional
authority
rendering
the
impugned order illegal and arbitrary.

25. While assailing the impugned
order dated 29.06.2022 passed in revision
by the Secretary, Government of U.P.
submitted that the same has been decided
by Dr. Roshan Jacob, who was also holding
the charge of Director, Mining and Geology
at the time when he had issued letter dated
20.03.2021 whereby clear directions were
issued to the District Magistrate to proceed
against and to blacklist him. To consider
the argument regarding bias, it would be
fruitful to consider the rendition of the
Supreme Court in this regard.

26. In the case of Mustafa v. Union of
India, (2022) 1 SCC 294 the Apex Court
has held as under :-

36.More appropriate for our
case would be an earlier decision inG.
Saranav.University
of
Lucknow[G.
Saranav.University of Lucknow, (1976) 3
SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] ,
wherein a similar question had come up
for consideration before a three-Judge
Bench of this Court as the petitioner, after
having appeared before the selection
committee and on his failure to get
appointed, had challenged the selection
result pleading bias against him by three
out of five members of the selection
committee.
He
also
challenged
constitution of the committee. Rejecting
the challenge, this Court had held : (SCC
p. 591, para 15)

"15.
We
do
not,
however,
consider it necessary in the present case to
go into the question of the reasonableness
of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite
the fact that the appellant knew all the
relevant facts, he did not before appearing
for the interview or at the time of the
interview raise even his little finger
against the constitution of the Selection
Committee. He seems to have voluntarily
appeared before the committee and taken
a
chance
of
having
a
favourable
recommendation from it. Having done so,
it is not now open to him to turn round
and question the constitution of the
committee. This view gains strength from
a decision of this Court inManak Lal
case[Manak Lalv.Prem Chand Singhvi,
AIR 1957 SC 425] where in more or less
similar circumstances, it was held that the
failure of the appellant to take the
identical plea at the earlier stage of the
proceedings created an effective bar of
waiver
against
him.
The
following
observations made therein are worth
quoting : (AIR p. 432, para 9)

''9. ... It seems clear that the
appellant wanted to take a chance to
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287
secure a favourable report from the
tribunal which was constituted and when
he found that he was confronted with an
unfavourable report, he adopted the
device of raising the present technical
point.' "

37.The aforesaid judgment inG.
Sarana[G.
Saranav.University
of
Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC
(L&S)
474]
was
referred
inMadras
Institute
of
Development
Studiesv.K.
Sivasubramaniyan[Madras
Institute
of
Development
Studiesv.K.
Sivasubramaniyan, (2016) 1 SCC 454 :
(2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 164] , in which
selection to the post of Assistant Professor
was challenged on the ground that
shortlisting of candidates was contrary to
the Faculty Recruitment Rules. The
challenge was declined on the ground of
estoppel as the respondent, without raising
any objection to the alleged variations in
the contents of the advertisement and the
Rules, had submitted his application and
participated in the selection process by
appearing before the committee of experts.

38.Equally appropriate would be
a reference to the decision of this Court
inP.D.
Dinakaran
(1)v.Judges
Inquiry
Committee[P.D.
Dinakaran
(1)v.Judges
Inquiry Committee, (2011) 8 SCC 380] , in
which the allegation was that one of the
members of the committee constituted by
the Chairman of the Council of States
(Rajya Sabha) under Section 3(2) of the
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was biased. This
judgment
extensively
recites
and
assimilates from both domestic and foreign
judgments on the question of bias and
prejudice
and
quotes
the
following
observations
inG.
Sarana[G.
Saranav.University of Lucknow, (1976) 3
SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] case : (G.
Sarana case[G. Saranav.University of
Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC
(L&S) 474] , SCC p. 590, para 11)

"11. ... the real question is not
whether a member of an administrative
board
while
exercising
quasi-judicial
powers
or
discharging
quasi-judicial
functions was biased, for it is difficult to
probe the mind of a person. What has to be
seen is whether there is a reasonable
ground for believing that he was likely to
have been biased. In deciding the question
of bias, human probabilities and ordinary
course of human conduct have to be taken
into consideration."

39.Thereafter, reference is made
toAshok
Kumar
Yadavv.State
of
Haryana[Ashok Kumar Yadavv.State of
Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC
(L&S) 88] , which refers to the Constitution
Bench judgment inA.K. Kraipakv.Union of
India[A.K. Kraipakv.Union of India, (1969)
2 SCC 262] .Ashok Kumar Yadav[Ashok
Kumar Yadavv.State of Haryana, (1985) 4
SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88] was a case
of selection by UPSC and following extract
from this judgment is of some significance :
(Ashok Kumar Yadav case[Ashok Kumar
Yadavv.State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC
417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88] , SCC pp. 44243, para 18)

"18. We must straightaway point
out thatA.K. Kraipak[A.K. Kraipakv.Union
of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262] is a landmark
in the development of administrative law
and it has contributed in a large measure to
the strengthening of the rule of law in this
country. We would not like to whittle down
in the slightest measure the vital principle
laid down in this decision which has
nourished the roots of the rule of law and
injected justice and fair play into legality.
There can be no doubt that if a Selection
Committee is constituted for the purpose of
selecting candidates on merits and one of
the members of the Selection Committee is
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
closely related to a candidate appearing for
the selection, it would not be enough for
such member merely to withdraw from
participation in the interview of the
candidate related to him but he must
withdraw
altogether
from
the
entire
selection process and ask the authorities to
nominate another person in his place on
the Selection Committee, because otherwise
all the selections made would be vitiated on
account of reasonable likelihood of bias
affecting the process of selection. But the
situation here is a little different because
the selection of candidates to the Haryana
Civil
Service
(Executive)
and
Allied
Services is being made not by any Selection
Committee constituted for that purpose but
it is being done by the Haryana Public
Service
Commission
which
is
a
Commission set up under Article 316 of the
Constitution. It is a Commission which
consists of a Chairman and a specified
number of members and is a constitutional
authority. We do not think that the principle
which requires that a member of a
Selection Committee whose close relative is
appearing for selection should decline to
become a member of the Selection
Committee or withdraw from it leaving it to
the appointing authority to nominate
another person in his place, need be
applied in case of a constitutional authority
like
the
Public
Service
Commission,
whether Central or State. If a member of a
Public
Service
Commission
were
to
withdraw altogether from the selection
process on the ground that a close relative
of his is appearing for selection, no other
person save a member can be substituted in
his place. And it may sometimes happen
that no other member is available to take
the place of such member and the
functioning
of
the
Public
Service
Commission may be affected. When two or
more members of a Public Service
Commission are holding a viva voce
examination, they are functioning not as
individuals but as the Public Service
Commission. Of course, we must make it
clear that when a close relative of a
member of a Public Service Commission is
appearing for interview, such member must
withdraw
from
participation
in
the
interview of that candidate and must not
take part in any discussion in regard to the
merits of that candidate and even the marks
or credits given to that candidate should
not be disclosed to him."

40."Real likelihood test" applied
inRanjit Thakurv.Union of India[Ranjit
Thakurv.Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611
: 1988 SCC (L&S) 1] , is elucidated in the
following words : (SCC pp. 617-18, paras
15-17)

"15. ... The test of real likelihood
of bias is whether a reasonable person, in
possession of relevant information, would
have thought that bias was likely and
whether Respondent 4 was likely to be
disposed to decide the matter only in a
particular way.

16. It is the essence of a judgment
that it is made after due observance of the
judicial process; that the court or tribunal
passing it observes, at least the minimal
requirements
of
natural
justice;
is
composed of impartial persons acting fairly
and without bias and in good faith. A
judgment which is the result of bias or want
of impartiality is a nullity and the trial
"coram non judice"....

17. As to the tests of the
likelihood of bias what is relevant is the
reasonableness of the apprehension in that
regard in the mind of the party. The proper
approach for the Judge is not to look at his
own mind and ask himself, however,
honestly, "Am I biased?"; but to look at the
mind of the party before him."
3 All. M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289

27. In light of the settled law and the
pronouncements of the Supreme Court on
bias, examining the facts of the present
case, this Court is of the view that Dr.
Roshan Jacob, who was also the Director,
Geology and Mining had directed the
District Magistrate to proceed against the
petitioner and to cancel his mining lease,
which order was duly complied, and
subsequently she herself as the revisional
authority against the order of cancellation
of the mining lease proceeded to hear and
reject the revision, which order would
certainly be hit by the vice of bias. It is the
particular officer who initiated proceedings
against the petitioner and other similarly
situated persons, who can be said to have
already made up her mind with regard to
the penalty to be imposed upon the
petitioner which is evident from her letter
dated 20.03.2021 and further proceeded to
decide the revision and, therefore, she was
a Judge of her own cause deciding a matter
which was initiated by her and also the
revision challenging the order of District
Magistrate which was passed on her
dictates. The ground of bias squarely
applies to the facts of the present case and
the order dated 29.06.2022 rejecting the
revision is clearly illegal and arbitrary and
is hit with vice of bias.

28. This Court has also examined the
revisional order passed in the case of VAR
Enterprises Private Limited in Revision
No.128 (R)/SM/2021. It is noticed that the
revisionist therein was also confronted with
the same inspection report where he was
also held guilty of illegal mining in an area
beyond the leased area allotted to him.