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

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-08
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 18463 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramveer-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50714
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - U.P. Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal
Mining,
Transportation
and
Storage) Rules, 2018 - Rule 12 - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 -
Principles of Natural Justice - Petitioner
challenged the District Magistrate's order dated
25.02.2023, imposing financial liability for
royalty, penalty, and mineral price, and referring
the matter to the environmental pollution
department, after the seizure of his vehicle (UP
83 AU 1915) for alleged illegal mineral
transportation. The vehicle was initially seized
under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
and despite the Chief Judicial Magistrate's
release order on 07.02.2023, it was not
released. Petitioner argued that no show-cause
notice was issued before the impugned order,
violating natural justice. Respondents contended
that
the
petitioner
admitted
to
carrying
minerals, and Rules 12 and 72 of the U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, did not
mandate a hearing. Court held that natural
justice principles, as established in A.K. Kraipak
and S.L. Kapoor, apply to administrative actions
with financial consequences, requiring a showcause notice and fair procedure, even if the
petitioner's application suggested an admission.
The vehicle seizure under the Motor Vehicles Act
and subsequent police reports limited the
petitioner's defense opportunity. Impugned
order
quashed,
vehicle
ordered
released
forthwith, with liberty to respondents to proceed
in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 7, 10-12)

Writ petition allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
protocol will be deemed to be performing
duty for prevention and protection of
COVID-19 as mentioned in Government
Order dated 11.4.2020 and if he dies
because
of
corona
infection
during
discharge of his duty then his dependents
will be entitled to receive ex gratia
compensation as per Government Order
dated 11.4.2020.

10. In view of the above, husband of
the petitioner Late Ashok Kumar Pandey
(Head Constable) while working at Civil
Airport Gorakhpur was involved in the
duty
of
prevention,
protection
and
treatment of COVID-19, therefore, on his
death, the petitioner is entitled for ex gratia
compensation as per the Government order
dated 11.4.2020. The respondent No.1 is
directed
to
release
the
ex
gratia
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the
petitioner within a period of one month
from today.

11. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1016
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ-C No. 18463 of 2023

Ramveer ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajnish Kumar, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - U.P. Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal
Mining,
Transportation
and
Storage) Rules, 2018 - Rule 12 - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 207 -
Principles of Natural Justice - Petitioner
challenged the District Magistrate's order dated
25.02.2023, imposing financial liability for
royalty, penalty, and mineral price, and referring
the matter to the environmental pollution
department, after the seizure of his vehicle (UP
83 AU 1915) for alleged illegal mineral
transportation. The vehicle was initially seized
under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
and despite the Chief Judicial Magistrate's
release order on 07.02.2023, it was not
released. Petitioner argued that no show-cause
notice was issued before the impugned order,
violating natural justice. Respondents contended
that
the
petitioner
admitted
to
carrying
minerals, and Rules 12 and 72 of the U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, did not
mandate a hearing. Court held that natural
justice principles, as established in A.K. Kraipak
and S.L. Kapoor, apply to administrative actions
with financial consequences, requiring a showcause notice and fair procedure, even if the
petitioner's application suggested an admission.
The vehicle seizure under the Motor Vehicles Act
and subsequent police reports limited the
petitioner's defense opportunity. Impugned
order
quashed,
vehicle
ordered
released
forthwith, with liberty to respondents to proceed
in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 7, 10-12)

Writ petition allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. A.K. Kraipak & ors.Vs U.O.I.& ors., (1969) 2
SCC 262

2. Suresh Koshy George Vs The University of
Kerala & ors., Civil Appeal No. 990/68

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

4. S.L. Kapoor Vs Jagmohan & ors., AIR 1981
SC 136
9 All. Ramveer Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
5. R. Vs Home Secretary, Ex. P. Hosenball,
(1977) 1 WLR 766

6. Altco Ltd. Vs Sutherland, (1971) 2 Lloyd's Rep
515

7. R. Vs Thames Magistrates' Court, ex.p.
Polemis, (1974) 1 WLR 1371

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,
J. & Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Instructions filed today be kept on
record.

2. From the record, we find that the
tractor trolley of the petitioner being
vehicle
no.UP
83
AU
1915
was
apprehended by the police of Police Station
Shikohabad, District Firozabad and an
information was sent to the petitioner that
the vehicle was seized for violation of the
provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and, therefore, it was challaned under
section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
petitioner filed an application for release of
the vehicle before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Firozabad on 7.2.2023 stating
that
the
vehicle
was
required
for
agricultural proposes. Thereafter a police
report was called for and the police also
submitted its report on 7.2.2023 stating that
the vehicle was seized under section 207 of
the Motor Vehicles Act. On 7.2.2023, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate released the
vehicle. When, however, the vehicle was
not being released, the petitioner applied
before the District Magistrate and informed
him that even though he was carrying
certain minerals legally, the vehicle had
been confiscated despite the order of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 7.2.2023.
Thereafter instead of releasing the vehicle,
the District Magistrate on 25.2.2023 passed
the impugned order by which the price of
the mineral found, the royalty on it and the
penalty were asked for. Also the matter was
referred to the department dealing with
environmental
pollution.
Aggrieved
thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant
writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the order impugned dated
25.2.2023, on the face of it, was erroneous
on account of the fact that before any order
was passed and before the vehicle was
confiscated/impounded
under
the
provisions of U.P. Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal
Mining,
Transportation
and
Storage), Rules 2018 (hereinafter referred
to as the "2018 Rules"), the petitioner was
not provided with any show-cause notice.
He submits that before the petitioner was
saddled with financial liability, he should
have been heard. Learned counsel to bolster
his arguments relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak & Ors.
vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1969
(2) SCC 262. Since learned counsel relied
heavily upon paragraph 20 it is being
reproduced here as under :

"20. The aim of the rules of natural
justice is to secure justice or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.
These rules can operate only in areas not
covered by any law validly made. In other
words they do not supplant the law of
the land but supplement it. The concept
of natural justice has undergone a great
deal of change in recent years. In the past it
was thought that it included just two rules
namely : (1) no one shall be a judge in his
own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria
causa) and (2) no decision shall be given
against a party without affording him a
reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was
envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial
enquiries must be held in good faith,
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without
bias
and
not
arbitrarily
or
unreasonably. But in the course of years
many more subsidiary rules came to be
added to the rules of natural justice. Till
very recently it was the opinion of the
courts that unless the authority concerned
was required by the law under which it
functioned to act judicially there was no
room for the application of the rules of
natural justice. The validity of that
limitation is now questioned. If the
purpose of the rules of natural justice is
to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails
to see why those rules should be made
inapplicable to administrative enquiries.
Often times it is not easy to draw the line
that demarcates administrative enquiries
from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries
which were considered administrative at
one time are now being considered as
quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just
decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial
enquiries
as
well
as
administrative
enquiries. An unjust decision in an
administrative enquiry may have more far
reaching effect than a decision in a quasijudicial enquiry. As observed by this Court
in Suresh Koshy George v. The University
of
Kerala
and
Ors.
(Civil
Appeal
No.990/68,decided on 15-7-1968) the rules
of natural justice are not embodied rules.
What particular rule of natural justice
should apply to a given case must depend
to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the framework
of the law under which the enquiry is held
and the Constitution of the Tribunal or
body of persons appointed for that purpose.
Whenever a complaint is made before a
court that some principle of natural justice
had been contravened the court has to
decide whether the observance of that rule
was necessary for a just decision on the
facts of that case."

 (emphasis supplied)

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that if the Statute did not
provide for a hearing then the principles of
natural justice should be read into the
Statute. In support of this submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has also
relied upon a judgment of this Court in
Ranveer Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2017 (1) ADJ 240. Since, he
specifically relies upon paragraph nos.30
and 33 of the judgment, the same are being
reproduced here as under :-

"30. Thus law on the subject is clear
that in case no procedure has been provided
for as to in what way and manner the
authority is to be exercised, then at the said
point of time, the exercise of power by
public authority has to be properly
discharged i.e. it has to be decided with
fairness and after following the principle of
natural justice and the sense of justice and
equity should continue to guide the
Authorities concerned while conducting
such proceedings in deciding the dispute on
merit as the said decision in question would
have large scale financial repercussions on
the incumbent against whom proceedings
in question have been initiated.

33. Once the liability was to be
fastened on the shoulder of 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 show-cause 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 petitioner, their names ought
to have been disclosed and they ought to
have been produced to support the case of
State that petitioner in fact has indulged in
illegal mining. Not only this as a part of
9 All. Ramveer Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
process, petitioner was was entitled to have
reasonable
opportunity
of
defending
himself by questioning the veracity of
evidence produced against him and by
adducing his own defence 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."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has, thus, submitted that if there was no
specific law or procedure provided in any
Rule by which a vehicle was to be
confiscated/seized under the law of mines,
then the exercise of power by the public
authority had to be properly discharged i.e.
it had to be decided with fairness and after
following the principles of natural justice.
Justice and equity should always be a
guiding factor. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that once the
liability was to be fastened on the petitioner
then it was obligatory for the State to prove
the offence by credible evidence available
and the petitioner should also be permitted
to lead evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner had a permission
from the owner of the minerals namely
Mukesh Kumar to carry minerals on his
trolly.

7. Learned counsel submits that even
if the communication of the petitioner
dated 9.2.2023 was being taken as an
admission of the petitioner's guilt, the order
impugned should have been preceded by a
show-cause notice. In support of this
argument learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
reported in AIR 1981 SC 136. Since
learned counsel specifically relied upon
paragraph no.24 of the judgment, the same
is being reproduced here as under :-

"24. The matter has also been treated
as an application of the general principle
that justice should not only be done but
should be seen to be done. Jackson's
Natural Justice (1980 Edn.) contains a very
interesting discussion of the subject. He
says :

"The distinction between justice being
done and being seen to be done has been
emphasised in many cases.

xx xx xx

The requirement that justice should be
seen to be done may be regarded as a
general principle which in some cases can
be satisfied only by the observance of the
rules of natural justice or as itself forming
one of those rules. Both explanations of the
significance of the maxim are found in
Lord Widgery C.J.'s judgment in R.V.
Home Secretary, Ex. P. Hosenball, (1977) 1
W.L.R.766, 772 whereafter saying that "the
principles of natural justice are those
fundamental rules, the breach of which will
prevent justice from being seen to be done"
he went on to describe the maxim as "one
of the rules generally accepted in the
bundle of the rules making up natural
justice."

It is the recognition of the importance
of the requirement that justice is seen to be
done that justifies the giving of a remedy to
a litigant even when it may be claimed that
a decision alleged to be vitiated by a breach
of natural justice would still have been
reached had a fair hearing been given by an
impartial tribunal. The maxim is applicable
precisely when the Court is concerned not
with a case of actual injustice but with the
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appearance
of
injustice,
or
possible
injustice. In Altco Ltd. v. Sutherland,
(1971) 2 Lloyd's Rep 515 Donaldson J. said
that the court, in deciding whether to
interfere where an arbitrator had not given
a party a full hearing was not concerned
with whether a further hearing would
produce a different or the same result. It
was important that the parties should not
only be given justice, but, as reasonable
men, know that they had had justice or "to
use the time hallowed phrase" that justice
should not only be done but be seen to be
done. In R.V. Thames Magistrates' Court,
ex.p. Polemis, (1974) 1 WLR 1371, the
applicant obtained an order of certiorari to
quash his conviction by a stipendiary
magistrate on the ground that he had not
had sufficient time to prepare his defence.
The Divisional Court rejected the argument
that, in its discretion, it ought to refuse
relief because the applicant had no defence
to the charge.

'It is again absolutely basic to our
system that justice must not only be done
but must manifestly be seen to be done. If
justice was so clearly not seen to be done,
as on the afternoon in question here, it
seems to me that it is no answer to the
applicant to say : 'Well, even if the case had
been properly conducted, the result would
have been the same'. That is mixing up
doing justice with seeing that justice is
done (per Lord Widgery C.J. at p. 1375)."

In our view the principles of natural
justice know of no exclusionary rule
dependent on whether it would have made
any difference if natural justice had been
observed. The non-observance of natural
justice is itself prejudice to any man and
proof of prejudice independently of proof
of denial of natural justice is unnecessary.
It ill comes from a person who has denied
justice that the person who has been
denied justice is not prejudiced. As we said
earlier
where
on
the
admitted
or
indisputable facts only one conclusion is
possible and under the law only one
penalty is permissible, the Court may not
issue its writ to compel the observance of
natural justice, not because it is not
necessary to observe natural justice but
because Courts do not issue futile writs.
We do not agree with the contrary view
taken by the Delhi High Court in the
judgment under appeal."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Sri Ankur Tandon, learned Standing
Counsel in reply, however, has submitted
that while the vehicle was confiscated on
2.2.2023, Sri Mahendra Singh, SubInspector,
Police
Station
Shikohabad,
District Firozabad had sent a report that
though the vehicle was seized under section
207 of the Motor Vehicles Act it had
contained certain minerals which the
vehicle was illegally carrying. He further
submits that the petitioner himself on
9.2.2023 had submitted that he was
carrying
minerals.
Learned
Standing
counsel further submits that when the
petitioner himself had admitted that he was
carrying the minerals and when the
minerals were not accompanied by any of
the papers which are provided under Rule
22 of the 2018 Rules, then it was the duty
of the designated officers, as mentioned in
Rule 12(2) of the 2018 Rules, to have
stopped, checked and apprehended the
vehicle. In the instant case, learned
Standing Counsel states that even though
the vehicle was seized under section 207 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, action as had been
taken by the mines department was
justifiable.

9. Learned Standing Counsel has also
submitted that since neither the provisions
of Rule 12 of the 2018 Rules nor the
9 All. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021
provisions of 72 of the U.P. Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 2021 provided for
affording any opportunity, it was in the
fitness of things that the District Magistrate
had passed the impugned order dated
25.2.2023.

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the
petitioner
and
learned
Standing
Counsel, we are of the view that after the
police had submitted its report on 2.2.2023,
it was incumbent upon the District
Magistrate to have issued a show-cause
notice even if the petitioner was submitting
the application which the respondents are
stating was an admission on his behalf that
he was carrying minerals illegally. The
police is all powerful and we are of the
view that the applicant could have written
the application on the dictation of the
police. The judgment of the Supreme Court
in S.L. Kapoor (supra) clearly mandates
the observance of the principles of natural
justice even if the guilt is admitted.

11. Under such circumstances, we are
of the view that even though the petitioner
had stated in his application that he was
carrying minerals, the order impugned
should have been preceded by a showcause notice and thereafter a complete
procedure ought to have been adopted by
the official/authority which was passing the
order. We also find that the vehicle was
seized under section 207 of the Motor
Vehicles Act which was not in the
possession of the petitioner. The reports
were being submitted by the police after the
vehicle
was
seized.
The
petitioner,
therefore, had very little opportunity to
defend himself. It may be mentioned that
the application though had mentioned that
the petitioner was carrying minerals it did
not state that the minerals were being
carried illegally.

12. Under such circumstances, the
writ petition stands allowed. The order
dated 25.2.2023 is quashed. Consequently
the vehicle of the petitioner be released
forthwith. However, passing of this order
would not prohibit the respondents from
taking action against the petitioner in
accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1021
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ-C No. 20699 of 2023

Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil
Law
-
Mines
and
Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Section
21
-
U.P.
Minor
Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963 - Section 77 -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 -
Principles of Natural Justice - Petitioners,
bhumidhars of plots used for agriculture,
challenged the District Magistrate's order dated
08.12.2018, imposing royalty of Rs. 3,96,840/-,
mineral price of Rs. 19,84,200/-, and penalty of
Rs. 25,000/- for alleged illegal mining of 13,228
cubic meters of mud, and the Appellate Court's
order dated 08.05.2023 dismissing their appeal.
The orders relied on an ex parte Lekhpal report
dated 20.01.2018, lacking details of inspection
date or independent witnesses. Petitioners
contended that notices dated 05.02.2018,
24.04.2018, and 11.10.2018 were not received,
and the orders violated natural justice by not
verifying the Lekhpal's findings or the end use of