Gangotri Stone Crusher Through ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 17894 Guj

     C/SCA/5597/2021                                          ORDER DATED: 30/11/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5597 of 2021
==========================================================
 GANGOTRI STONE CRUSHER THROUGH PROPRIETOR DINESHBHAI
                  MAGANBHAI KANSAGRA
                         Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH AGP (4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

                                 Date : 30/11/2021

                                     ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the office of the Geologist, Geology and Mining Department, Morbi wherein, the respondent No.3 has imposed the penalty for an amount of Rs.69,80,406/- for breach of the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2017").

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner, vide order dated 15.10.2018, was permitted stock registration for black trap for a period of 10 years in connection with Survey No.235/1p admeasuring 00.78.44 heactor, situated at Village: Didhria, Taluka: Wakaner, District: Morbi. Owing to the inspection, which was carried out on 01.07.2020, followed by the notice dated 17.07.2020, the unauthorized stock to the tune of 15056.012 MT along with 332.89 MT was found outside the area and therefore, the petitioner was required to pay the penalty as indicated. The petitioner addressed a communication dated 04.08.2020 to the respondent No.3, inter alia,

C/SCA/5597/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2021

requesting to provide the documents as indicated in para (b). In addition to the demand for documents, it was also urged that it is only after the respondent No.3 provides the documents, the petitioner will be in a position to file the reply. The letter dated 04.08.2020 was followed by the another communication/reply dated 09.09.2020, reiterating the request. It was the specific case of the petitioner before the respondent No.3 that the measurement carried out in absence of any of the authorized officers of the office of the DILR, it is likely that the measurement would be incorrect and erroneous. The petitioner requested the respondent No.3 to carry out the measurement and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass the order; however, without acceding to the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 proceeded to pass the order dated 04.03.2021 for breach of the provisions of Rules 3, 10, 12(2) and 13 as well as Rules 21(1), 21(2) and 21(3) of the Rules of 2017, imposing the penalty for an amount of Rs.69,80,406/-.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 04.03.2021, mainly on the ground that despite there being repeated requests by the petitioner vide letter dated 04.08.2020, followed by the letter dated 09.09.2020, the respondent authorities, without considering the letter/reply and without providing any documents, as desired, proceeded to pass the order dated 04.03.2021. It is submitted that the said order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, neither the reply of the petitioner has been considered nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and aside. Moreover, the order also affects the constitutional rights of the petitioner and therefore, is bad and illegal. It is also submitted that the order dated 04.03.2021 is the reiteration and reproduction of the contents of the show-cause notice. It is submitted that while concluding, it has been simply observed that the petitioner has been

C/SCA/5597/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2021

issued notice of which, the petitioner has submitted the reply which cannot be considered. It is submitted that after observing that the reply of the petitioner cannot be considered, the respondent No.3 proceeded to pass the order, imposing the penalty of a huge amount of Rs.69,80,406/-. It is submitted that the respondent authorities, while proceeding to impose the penalty of such a huge amount, at-least, expected to offer an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consider the reply; however, in absence of such opportunity, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside, only on the limited ground that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State has conceded to the fact that the order dated 04.03.2021 does not carry any reasons and it is urged that the appropriate order be passed by this Court, quashing and setting aside the order of the respondent No.3.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents available on record.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner was issued the show- cause notice on 17.07.2020, requiring the petitioner to compound the offence by making a deposit of Rs.69,80,406/- to which, the petitioner has addressed a communication dated 04.08.2020, requesting the respondent No.3 to provide the documents, as indicated in para (b) of the reply; however, as not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the said documents were not provided to the petitioner. Since the documents were not provided, petitioner addressed another reply dated 09.09.2020 to the respondent No.3, reiterating its request and the contention was also raised before the authorities concerned about the measurement

C/SCA/5597/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2021

inasmuch as, the measurement has been carried out in absence of any authorized officers from the office of the DILR. In the reply dated 09.09.2020, the request was made by the petitioner for hearing; however, the respondent No.3, without acceding to the request of the petitioner, proceeded to pass the order dated 04.03.2021. Present is not the case where, despite issuance of the notice, the party has not appeared before the authority. In the present case, as is clear, the petitioner not once, but twice, has requested the authority to provide the documents, as indicated in the reply. Despite the reply being available on the record, the respondent No.3, while reproducing the contents of the show-cause notice, has simply made a reference to the reply of the petitioner and without discussing and dealing with the same, come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed breach of the provisions of the Rules 3, 10, 12(2) and 13 as well as Rules 21(1), 21(2) and 21(3) of the Rules of 2017.

7. Clearly, no reasons are assigned inasmuch as, except reproducing the contents of the show-cause notice, there is not a whisper about the contentions raised by the petitioner in its replies dated 04.08.2020 and 09.09.2020. Therefore, in absence of any reasons having been assigned by the respondent No.3, Ms.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner is right in contending that the order dated 04.03.2021 is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Also, while penalty of such a huge amount i.e. Rs.69,80,406/- is proposed to be imposed or is being imposed, the respondent No.3 is expected to assign reasons to substantiate the breach on the part of the petitioner having committed of the relevant Rules. In absence of any discussion, worth the name and the order being bereft of any reasons, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

C/SCA/5597/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2021

8. At this stage, reference to the judgment of the Apex Court is necessary. The Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. vs Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, has held and observed that reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. It has also been observed that reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. It is expected of a quasi-judicial authority to record the reasons in support of its conclusion and insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

9. As recorded hereinabove, the petitioner has been repeatedly requesting for providing the documents and requesting for measurement, the respondent No.3, without acceding to the request of the petitioner, has proceeded to pass the order dated 04.03.2021. Under the circumstances, the order dated 04.03.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3 with a direction that the respondent No.3 shall consider the replies dated 04.08.2020 and 09.09.2020 and, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass the detailed order, ensuring that there is no further round of litigation on this ground. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

10. With the aforesaid observation, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost.

C/SCA/5597/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/11/2021

11. In view of the order dated 04.03.2021 having been quashed and set aside, the respondent authority is directed to open the ATR on-line account immediately. Direct service is permitted.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) Hitesh