# Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Co., Sonbhadra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 683
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25003 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maa-vindhya-stone-crusher-co-sonbhadra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49507
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Principal of Natural Justice-Petitioner was
deprived of the opportunity to place his side of
the case-if the principles of natural justice
violated -then the Court, without going into the
actual order can set aside the same-impugned
order set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Co., Sonbhadra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
683
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.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 683
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ-C No. 25003 of 2023

Maa
Vindhya
Stone
Crusher
Co.,
Sonbhadra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udit Chandra, Sri Nitesh Patel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Principal of Natural Justice-Petitioner was
deprived of the opportunity to place his side of
the case-if the principles of natural justice
violated -then the Court, without going into the
actual order can set aside the same-impugned
order set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. The Board of High School and intermediate
Education, U.P. & ors. Vs Kumari Chitra
Srivastava & ors., 1970 (1) SCC 121

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. The petitioner was granted a
mining lease for 10 years commencing
from 15.7.2016 and ending on 14.7.2026
for the purpose of mining and crushing
stone. The petitioner for the purposes of
conveyance etc. was also issued Form -
MM-11 and regularly OTPs were provided
for effective use of the MM-11 Forms.

2. On 17.7.2023, while the petitioner
was still operating his mines as per the
mining lease dated 15.7.2016 he received a
notice on his E-mail Id where the allegation
was that illegal mining had been done by
him outside the area for which the mining
lease was granted and, therefore, he had
violated the Rules 3 and 58 of the Uttar
Pradesh Minor Minerals. (Concession)
Rules, 2021. This notice itself had raised a
demand of Rs. 1,70,06,000/-. As the
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner was finding the notice arbitrary,
he filed the instant writ petition.

3. When the writ petition was filed,
this Court had asked the learned Standing
Counsel to take instructions. However, on
10.8.2023, this Court directed the petitioner
to file a reply to the notice. This order was
passed in the presence of the learned
Standing
Counsel.
The
order
dated
10.8.2023 itself says that the learned
Standing Counsel was to inform the Court
as to under what provision of law the OTP
of the petitioner had been stopped. For the
sake of convenience the order dated
10.8.2023 is being reproduced here as
under:-

"Place this case on 21.8.2023 as
fresh. On that date learned Standing
Counsel may inform as to under what
provision of law the OTP of the petitioner
has been stopped without there being any
order to that effect. In the meantime, the
petitioner may reply to the notice.

If the petitioner files a reply, his
right to challenge the show-cause notice
shall still be there. "

4. The petitioner, it has been averred
in the writ petition which was amended
after 10.8.2023 that the petitioner had
served the order of this Court along with
the reply on the District Magistrate. It has
been stated that after the order dated
10.8.2023 was loaded on the website of the
High Court on 11.8.2023, he could serve
the order only on 14.8.2023 as 12.8.2023
was a second Saturday and 13.8.2023 was a
Sunday. It has been stated that on
14.8.2023 the District Magistrate did not
accept the reply and informed the petitioner
that since an order had already been passed
on 14.8.2023 vis-a-vis the notice dated
17.7.2023 and the lease of the petitioner
had been cancelled along with the order of
blacklisting for two years, there was no
requirement
to
take
the
reply.
The
petitioner, thereafter, filed an amendment
application which was allowed. The order
dated 14.8.2023, thus, is also challenged in
this writ petition.

5. On 5.10.2023 when it was brought
to the notice of the Court that the order of
cancellation of the lease of the petitioner
had been passed on 14.8.2023 without
considering the reply, the Court had
directed the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra,
to file his personal affidavit. It may be
stated that the petitioner had brought to the
notice of the Court the fact that after the
order dated 10.8.2023 was passed, the
petitioner had made all efforts to file the
reply as early as possible. In fact, in the
writ petition it has been categorically
explained why the order of this Court was
served only on 14.8.2023. It has been
informed by the petitioner that when it
came to knowledge of the petitioner that
the District Magistrate on the 14.8.2023
itself had passed the order, he had
challenged the same on the ground that the
order was passed in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice. The Court,
upon being informed about the manner in
which the order was passed, on 5.10.2023,
had passed the following order :-

"A show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner on 17th July, 2023 with
regard to some illegal mining. It was
emphatically stated in the show cause
notice that either the petitioner pays the
amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/ or he would
show cause. While the show cause notice
was yet to be replied to and a punishment
was still awaited, the OTP of the petitioner
with regard to the mining which he was
12 All. Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Co., Sonbhadra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
685
doing in the area for which he had a valid
lease was also stopped and, therefore, on
the instant writ petition on 31.7.2023 the
following order was passed by this Court:

"Instruction filed today, be kept
on record.

The petitioner is a partnership
firm engaged in the business of crushing
stones and also holds for that purpose a
mining lease for a period of ten years.

Allegation against the petitioner
is that he had done illegal mining in an
area which was not covered by his mining
lease.

Learned Standing Counsel to take
instructions in the matter as to whether
when the allegation is yet to be proved with
regard to the illegal mining in areas other
than the areas in which the mining lease
was granted to the petitioner can be
stopped from mining on areas covered by
his lease deed.

Put up this case on 07.08.2023 as
fresh."

When on 10th August, 2023, the
case was taken up the learned Standing
Counsel was asked to explain as to why the
OTP was stopped. We had also directed the
petitioner to file reply to the notice which
had been received by him on 17th July,
2023. After the order dated 10th August,
2023 was passed, the petitioner as per the
allegations made in the writ petition
approached the department to file a reply
on 14th August, 2023. There was a time
gap of two days as the order was obtained
on the 11th and thereafter 12th and 13th
were holidays. When the petitioner on 14th
August, 2023, went to file the reply, he was
supplied with the impugned order dated
14th August, 2023 (Annexure No.8).

In the order now impugned, we
find that apart from the punishment which
was contemplated in the show cause notice,
the petitioner's lease has also been
cancelled and also he has been blacklisted.
We are unable to understand as to why the
District Magistrate, Sonbhadra was in such
a haste to pass the impugned order. Even if
the reply was not there a personal hearing
was a must to the petitioner.

Put up this case as a fresh case
on 9th October, 2023 at 12 noon.

On
that
date
the
District
Magistrate,
Sonbhadra
may
file
his
personal affidavit explaining the haste. It is
made clear that if his personal affidavit is
not filed on that date, we might consider
the summoning of the District Magistrate,
Sonbhadra personally. ?"

6. In pursuance thereof, the District
Magistrate filed his personal affidavit
which was sworn on 8.10.2023 and in it the
District Magistrate had stated that the order
dated 10.8.2023 was not placed before him
and he also apologized unconditionally for
the fact that the order was passed without
taking into consideration the order of the
High Court dated 10.8.2023. Since the
learned counsel for the petitioner read out
the paragraph no. 10 and 11 of the personal
affidavit of the District Magistrate, they are
being reproduced here as under:-

"10. That, it is respectfully
submitted that order dated 10.08.2023 was
not placed before the deponent. It is further
submitted that considering the past conduct
of the petitioner for doing illegal mining,
the lease has been cancelled.
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. That, the deponent being a
responsible Government Officer has the
highest regards for the majesty and the
orders passed by this Hon?ble Court. The
deponent has no intention to flout the
orders passed by this Hon?ble Court in any
manner whatsoever. However, if this
Hon?ble Court comes to the conclusion
that any act or omission on the part of the
deponent is in violation of any of the orders
passed by this Hon?ble Court, the deponent
tenders his unconditional and unqualified
apology for the same and begs to be
pardoned."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that none of the averments made
in the reply which the petitioner had given
to the show cause notice had been
considered by the District Magistrate. In
fact, he submits that under no circumstance
could the reply of the petitioner have been
considered as the District Magistrate saw to
it that the order was passed before the
petitioner could submit its reply. He has
submitted that the order dated 10.8.2023
must have been communicated to the
District
Magistrate
as
the
District
Magistrate was very much represented
through the learned Standing Counsel.
However, very malafidely the impugned
order was passed. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, therefore, has submitted that the
Court may set aside the impugned order as
the same had been passed in gross violation
of the principles of natural justice. He
submits, relying on 1970 (1) SCC 121 :
The
Board
of
High
School
and
intermediate Education, U.P. and others
vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava and others,
that the non-compliance of the principles of
natural justice itself was enough to set aside
the order. The Court had not to go into the
fact as to whether the order was correct or
not.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied upon the judgement of this
Court reported in 2017 (1) ADJ 240 :
Ranveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and 7
others and has submitted that it was
incumbent upon the District Magistrate to
have followed the law as has been laid
down in the above mentioned case.

9. In reply, learned Standing Counsel,
however, has supported the order of the
District Magistrate and he has submitted
that the petitioner was a chronic trespasser.
He also made the Court go through the
impugned order and has submitted that
even if the petitioner was not heard there
were suitable reasons given in the order
itself for cancelling the lease of the
petitioner.

10. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel, this Court is of the view that if the
petitioner was deprived of the opportunity
to place his side of the case and if the
principles of natural justice were violated
then the Court, without going into the actual
order can set aside the same. This is also the
view of the Supreme Court in the judgement
reported in 1970 (1) SCC 121 : The Board of
High School and intermediate Education,
U.P. and others vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava
and others. The very fact, therefore, that the
principles of the natural justice were not
complied with is sufficient enough for this
Court to intervene and set aside the order
impugned. It may seem to a few that the
observance of the principles of natural justice
is a cumbersome process but we do find that in
a civilized society if the rule of law has to be
there then the principles of natural justice
should compulsorily be followed.

11. From what has been stated above,
we definitely find that the principles of
12 All. Smt. Haseena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
687
natural justice were grossly violated. We
find that the order of this Court dated
10.8.2023 was very clear to the effect that
the petitioner had to reply to the notice.
This order was passed in the presence of
the learned Standing Counsel yet the
District Magistrate had absolutely, not only
flouted the order of this Court but had also,
not cared to wait to get a reply of the
petitioner. Therefore, we have no other
option but to set aside the order impugned
dated 14.8.2023.

12. Under such circumstances, the
order dated 14.8.2023 passed by the
District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, is set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

13. The petitioner may now submit
his reply afresh within a period of one
week and, thereafter, after giving a
personal hearing to the petitioner, the
District
Magistrate
shall
adjudicate,
following the principles laid down in
Ranveer Singh (supra), on the reply of the
petitioner within the next one month.

14. The petitioner be allowed to
function so far as the lease vis-a-vis his
land is concerned. For that purpose OTPs
be generated for making Form MM-11
functional with immediate effect.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 687
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 25025 of 2023

Smt. Haseena & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Abhishek Shukla, Addl. C.S.C., Sri B.K.
Singh Raghuvanshi, Sri Kaushal Kumar
Mani

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006Section
67-A-petitioner
belongs
to
OBC
category and permanent resident of Village-
being landless agricultural labourer living below
poverty line- petitioners have constructed pucca
house with bricks and khaprail -and are in
possession over the same -respondents are
denying the petitioner's possession in any
manner-petitioners are claiming benefit of
Section 67-A- all the mandatory condition as
mentioned above are not fulfilled in the instant
matter- no evidence that petitioners were in
possession over the plot in dispute -which is
14th mandatory condition for settlement under
Section 67-A.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manorey alias Manohar Vs Board of Revenue
(U.P.) & ors., AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4102

2. Baij Nath Vs Commissioner Varanasi & ors. ,
2020 (147) RD 360 Baij

3. Raju Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2020 (149) RD 434

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pundir,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for
the state-respondents and Mr. B.K. Singh
Raghuvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.6.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
Khata No.151 Plot No.163 area 0-4-0
Biswa situated in Village- Bhuribans,