Bombay High Court
Sachin Mahadeorao Rajurkar vs Divisional Commissioner ... on 22 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP2249.16[J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2249 OF 2016
Sachin Mahadeorao Rajurkar,
Aged 30 years,
R/o. Rathinagar,
District-Amravati. .. Petitioner
ig .. Versus ..
1] Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2] District Collector,
Amravati.
3] Tahsildar, Amravati. .. Respondents
..........
Shri P.W. Mirza, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 22, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Collector, Amravati dated 5.3.2016 directing the petitioner to pay
penalty to the tune of Rs.58,30,000/- towards the payment of deficit
royalty and for excavating the minerals, in excess.
Inter alia, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside on the ground
that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity, whatsoever before
the impugned order was passed. It is stated that the petitioner was not
served even with a show cause notice before the imposition of the
penalty.
Shri Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, has tendered an affidavit-in-
reply in the court today. The same is accepted on record. It is stated in
the affidavit-in-reply that an enquiry was conducted in the matter of
excess excavation of minerals and it was found in the enquiry that the
petitioner had extracted more minerals than that was permissible. It is,
however, fairly admitted that before passing the impugned order, no
show cause notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was
not heard.
Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes
that an inquiry was conducted in the matter of excess excavation of
minerals by the petitioner and the petitioner was heard in the said
enquiry. It is stated that since the respondents have admitted that they
have not served a show cause notice to the petitioner before imposition
of the penalty, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
It is apparent, on hearing the learned Assistant Government
Pleader and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, that the petitioner was
not granted any opportunity whatsoever before the impugned order
imposing the penalty on the petitioner was passed. It is admitted that
no show cause notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner
was not heard in the matter of imposition of penalty. Since the order is
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable
to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are free
to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
