# Pradeep Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 681
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24167 of 2021
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49505
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

The Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal
Mining,
Transportation
and
Storage) Rules, 2018-order cancelling the
licence and imposing penalty - appeal -
dismissed -the instant writ petition-before the
order was passed by the District Magistrate-it
was not preceded by any personal hearing as
compulsorily required u/R 10 of the 2018 Rules-
Rule 13 provides for the imposition of a
maximum penalty of Rs. five lacs- no reason
given for the imposition of the maximum
penalty-no loss to the exchequer of the St.
Government -imposition of penalty erroneouscalculation of price as had been done by
multiplying the royalty by five was not
justifiable-no reason assigned-impugned order
set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

## Text

12 All. Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
681

22. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Collector
and
District
Magistrate,
Firozabad, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Tehsil Sadar, District Firozabad, the
Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Firozabad
and
the
Pradhan,
Gram
Panchayat,
Alinagar, Kenjra, Block and District
Firozabad, through the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Firozabad and to the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Firozabad.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 681
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 24167 of 2021

Pradeep Kumar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal
Mining,
Transportation
and
Storage) Rules, 2018-order cancelling the
licence and imposing penalty - appeal -
dismissed -the instant writ petition-before the
order was passed by the District Magistrate-it
was not preceded by any personal hearing as
compulsorily required u/R 10 of the 2018 Rules-
Rule 13 provides for the imposition of a
maximum penalty of Rs. five lacs- no reason
given for the imposition of the maximum
penalty-no loss to the exchequer of the St.
Government -imposition of penalty erroneouscalculation of price as had been done by
multiplying the royalty by five was not
justifiable-no reason assigned-impugned order
set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. 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
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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 along with 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 thus finds
that the imposition of the maximum penalty
provided under Rule 13 of the 2018 Rules
was erroneous. Further, the Court finds that
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