# Ramlala v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 732
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 31059 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramlala-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49518
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Mining
lease
-
Cancellation - Show Cause Notice -
Notice for illegal mining was issued in
respect of one plot, but impugned order
was passed in respect of different plot -
Notice
not
in
conformity
with
the
principle
of
natural
justice
-
Permissibility - Held, a show cause
notice is required to provide details of
the nature of the offence and the
grounds on which the show cause notice
has been issued - The order that is
subsequently passed, based on the show
cause notice, cannot go beyond the said
show cause notice - Order passed
subsequently is beyond the said show
cause notice, the same would amount to
violation of the principles of natural
justice. (Para 9 and 10)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for initiating recovery proceedings against
the Pradhan cannot be sustained, therefore,
the show cause notice is bad and is non est
in the eye of law.

18. It is a settled legal proposition that if
an initial action is not in consonance with law,
all subsequent and consequential proceedings
would be vitiated. The Apex Court in the case
of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar4, has held that if initial action itself is
illegal, all subsequent actions emanating from
that act are also a nullity.

19. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu
& others5 and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu
N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr6, the Apex Court
observed that once the basis of a proceeding is
gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders
would fall to the ground automatically and this
principle is applicable to judicial, quasijudicial
and
administrative
proceedings
equally.

20. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli
(dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra
(dead) by Lrs. & Ors.7, the Apex Court held
that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law,
then all further proceedings, consequent
thereto, will be non est and have to be
necessarily set aside.

21. On perusal of the Act and the Rules,
the Court is of the clear view that an elected
representative can be removed only and
strictly in accordance with law and in this
regard the law which provides for removal of
an elected representative has to be strictly
construed. In the present case, the Court finds
that the show cause notice itself is bad as the
same is vague and ambiguous. Since the show
cause notice dated 14.02.2023 is nullity in the
eye of law, therefore, it cannot be sustained, so
its consequential proceedings, i.e. impugned
order dated 07.08.2023 ceasing administrative
and financial powers of the petitioner-Pradhan,
stand automatically vitiated and is liable to be
declared non est in view of law.

22. In view of the above, the impugned
order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the
respondent
no.2
ceasing
financial
and
administrative powers of the petitioner is
hereby quashed.

23.

However,
the
District
Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Mau, i.e.
respondent no.2 is directed to proceed on
the basis of inquiry as already conducted on
the
complaint
so
made
against
the
petitioner and issue afresh and proper show
cause notice, in accordance with the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 and read with Rules 1997 and
pass a reasoned and speaking final order.
Consequences shall follow accordingly, in
accordance with law.

24. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the writ petition is allowed.

25. Office is directed to give a copy of
this order to learned Chief Standing Counsel,
who shall communicate this order forthwith to
the respondent no.2, i.e. District Magistrate,
Mau for compliance.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 732
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. 31059 of 2023

Ramlala ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
12 All. Ramlala Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Civil
Law
-
Mining
lease
-
Cancellation - Show Cause Notice -
Notice for illegal mining was issued in
respect of one plot, but impugned order
was passed in respect of different plot -
Notice
not
in
conformity
with
the
principle
of
natural
justice
-
Permissibility - Held, a show cause
notice is required to provide details of
the nature of the offence and the
grounds on which the show cause notice
has been issued - The order that is
subsequently passed, based on the show
cause notice, cannot go beyond the said
show cause notice - Order passed
subsequently is beyond the said show
cause notice, the same would amount to
violation of the principles of natural
justice. (Para 9 and 10)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Pun Vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar &
ors.; 2011 (14) SCC 770

2. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs Toyo
Engineering India Ltd.; (2006) 7 SCC 592

3.
Commissioner
of
Central
Excise,
Bhubaneshwar Vs Champdany Industries Ltd.;
(2009) 9 SCC 466

4. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh
Vs Shital International, (2011) 1 SCC 109

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

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. On 31.05.2022, the District
Magistrate, Sonebhadra, based on some
inspection report, issued a show cause
notice as to why the petitioner may not be
punished for having excavated over Plot
No.824 Kha. The petitioner replied to the
said notice and submitted that he had a
lease of mining work with regard to Plot
No.421 Ga area 0.506 hectare and he also
submitted that the petitioner was continuing
with the mining work on the aforesaid plot
alone. However, when final order dated
20.6.2022 was passed, it dealt with illegal
mining over Plot No.421 Kha, which was
definitely not the subject matter of the
show cause notice dated 31.05.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that since the show cause notice was
with regard to Plot No.824 Kha, the order
ought to have been dealt with illegal
mining over Plot No.824 Kha and no other
plot. He has relied upon a judgment of
Supreme Court rendered in the case of
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar and others; 2011 (14) SCC 770
and submitted that if the show cause notice
is
defective
then
the
consequential
proceedings cannot stand. He further
submits that if the show cause notice was
with regard to some other plot and the
punishment is being imposed with regard to
some other plot then it would be deemed
that the authority, which had issued the
show cause notice, was not clear of the
subject matter and, therefore, when there is
no clarity in the show cause notice itself,
the authority which has passed the
impugned order could not have passed the
same with regard to some other plot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also
states that when final order mentioned
some other plot and the show cause notice
mentioned some other plot then the entire
proceedings were null and void.
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, however,
submits that the order impugned was
passed with regard to Plot No.421 Kha and
during the proceedings the petitioner had
participated
and
given
explanation,
therefore, there was no error in the order
impugned and this Court may not interfere
with the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court
in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case
(supra) to buttress his arguments in
relation to the above submissions. He
placed reliance on paragraph Nos.107 to
110 of the said judgment, which are
extracted as under:

"107. It is a
settled legal
proposition that if initial action is not in
consonance with law, all subsequent and
consequential
proceedings
would
fall
through for the reason that illegality strikes
at the root of the order. In such a factsituation,
the
legal
maxim
"sublato
fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby
that
foundation
being
removed,
structure/work falls, comes into play and
applies on all scores in the present case.

108. In Badrinath v. State of
Tamil Nadue & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243;
and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S.
Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191,
this Court observed that once the basis of a
proceeding is gone, all consequential acts,
actions, orders would fall to the ground
automatically
and
this
principle
is
applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative proceedings equally.

109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad
Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar
Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3
SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at
the initial stage is bad in law, then all
further proceedings, consequent thereto,
will be non est and have to be necessarily
set aside.

110. In C. Albert Morris v. K.
Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228,
this Court held that a right in law exists
only and only when it has a lawful origin.
(See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of
Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381;
Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa &
Ors.,
(2004)
8
SCC
599;
Regional
Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari,
(2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari &
Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC
3823)."

6. It may further be noted that the
Supreme Court in a catena of judgments
has held that the grounds, upon which the
action is to be taken against a person, are
required to be mentioned in the show cause
notice. In Commissioner of Customs,
Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd.,
(2006) 7 SCC 592, the Supreme Court has
held has under:

"16. Learned counsel for the
Revenue tried to raise some of the
submissions which were not allowed to be
raised by the Tribunal before us, as well.
We agree with the Tribunal that the
Revenue could not be allowed to raise these
submissions for the first time in the second
appeal before the Tribunal. Neither the
adjudicating authority nor the Appellate
Authority had denied the facility of the
project import to the respondent on any of
these grounds. These grounds did not find
mention in the show-cause notice as well.
The Department cannot travel beyond the
show-cause notice. Even in the grounds of
appeals these points have not been taken."
12 All. Ramlala Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
735

7. Furthermore, in Commissioner of
Central
Excise,
Bhubaneshwar
v.
Champdany Industries Ltd., (2009) 9
SCC 466, the Supreme Court has held as
under:

"38. Apart from that, the point on
Rule 3 which has been argued by the
learned counsel for the Revenue was not
part of its case in the show-cause notice. It
is well settled that unless the foundation of
the case is made out in the show-cause
notice, the Revenue cannot in Court argue a
case not made out in its show-cause notice.
(See Commr. of Customs v. Toyo Engg.
India Ltd. [(2006) 7 SCC 592] ) Similar
view
was
expressed
by
this
Court
in CCE v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [(2007)
8 SCC 89] In para 27 of the said Report,
learned Judges made it clear that if there is
no invocation of the Rules concerned in the
show-cause notice, it would not be open to
the Commissioner to invoke the said
Rules."

8. Finally, one may take further
recourse to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chandigarh
v.
Shital
International,
(2011) 1 SCC 109. Relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is delineated below:

"19. As regards the process of
electrifying polish, now pressed into
service by the Revenue, it is trite law that
unless the foundation of the case is laid in
the show-cause notice, the Revenue cannot
be permitted to build up a new case against
the
assessee.
(See Commr.
of
Customs v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [(2006) 7
SCC 592] , CCE v. Ballarpur Industries
Ltd. [(2007)
8
SCC
89]
and CCE v. Champdany
Industries
Ltd. [(2009) 9 SCC 466] ) Admittedly, in
the instant case, no such objection was
raised by the adjudicating authority in the
show-cause notice dated 22-6-2001 relating
to Assessment Years 1988-1989 to 20002001. However, in the show-cause notice
dated
12-12-2000,
the
process
of
electrifying polish finds a brief mention.
Therefore, in the light of the settled legal
position, the plea of the learned counsel for
the Revenue in that behalf cannot be
entertained as the Revenue cannot be
allowed to raise a fresh plea, which has not
been raised in the show-cause notice nor
can it be allowed to take contradictory
stands in relation to the same assessee."

9. The principle that emerges from the
above judgements is patently clear that a
show cause notice is required to provide
details of the nature of the offence and the
grounds on which the show cause notice
has been issued. Furthermore, the order that
is subsequently passed, based on the show
cause notice, cannot go beyond the said
show cause notice and cannot in any
manner penalise the noticee on grounds
that were not stated in the show cause
notice.

10. The rationale for not allowing the
respondents from going beyond the realm
of the show cause notice is that the
petitioner has to be given a chance to put
up his case with regard to the said show
cause notice. In the event, a particular case
is made out in the show cause notice and
the order passed subsequently is beyond the
said show cause notice, the same would
amount to violation of the principles of
natural justice, as the petitioner would not
have been aware of the new grounds or
new factual elements and could never have
placed his case for the above before the
authority
concerned.
It
is
in
this
background that the Supreme Court in
umpteen judgments has laid down the law
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that an order passed by an authority cannot
go beyond the scope of the show cause
notice. In fact, the Supreme Court in the
case of The Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. and Others
v.
Kumari
Chitra
Srivastava
and
Others;
1970
(1)
SCC
121
has
categorically stated that the principles of
audi alteram partem are required to be
followed even if the same is burdensome in
nature. Justice S.M. Sikri in his inimitable
style stated as follows:

"Principles of natural justice are
to some minds burdensome but this price -
a small price indeed - has to be paid if we
desire a society governed by the rule of
law."

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we find that in the show cause
notice
dated
31.5.2022,
the
District
Magistrate, Sonebhadra had directed the
petitioner to show cause with regard to the
illegal mining over Plot No.824 Kha but
when the order impugned was passed we
find that it is with regard to Plot
No.421Kha. We also find that the plot,
which was mentioned in the show cause
notice, had no bearing with the order
impugned in the instant writ petition. In the
light of above, it is crystal clear that not
only is show cause notice badly drafted and
incomplete but also the order passed
subsequently is inherently misconceived
going way beyond the show cause notice
issued. Ergo, show cause notice dated
31.05.2022 and the order dated 20.6.2022
are quashed and set aside.

12. Needless to mention, it shall be
open to the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra
to initiate the proceedings afresh in
accordance with law.

13. With these observations, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No.36746 of 2023

M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Registration Act, 1908 -
Sections 17(2)(xii) & 89(4) - Public
auction - After acceptance of bid, the sale
certificate was issued to the purchaser -
Before mutation, the sale certificate was
required to be registered and Stamp duty
was demanded - Validity challenged -
Held, S. 17(2)(xii) of the Act exempts the
certificate of sale granted to the purchaser
of any property sold by public auction by a
civil or Revenue Officer, from registration.
Hence it is clear that the sale certificate in
question is not compulsorily registrable
document - The certificate of sale itself
being
not
compulsorily
registrable
document as is clear from S. 17(2)(xii) of
the Act, the transfer of title in favour of
purchaser
is
not
vitiated
by
nonregistration of the certificate. (Para 18
and 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited: