Jharkhand High Court
Madan Mohan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 30 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P(C) No. 341 of 2018
Madan Mohan Prasad Singh, aged 70 years, s/o late Kuldeep Singh, r/o Gopi
Lane, Power Ganj, PO-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga ...... . Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-
Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
2. Depaprtment of Industries, Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda,
District Ranchi
3.District Mining Officer, Lohardaga, PO- Lohardaga, PS- Lohardaga,
District- Lohardaga ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Mohan Dubey, AC to AG
-------
Order No.4 /Dated: 30th October 2023
This is an assigned matter by virtue of the order dated 24 th
February 2018 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Acting Chief
Justice.
2. The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 5 th
October 2017 purportedly issued in the light of the judgment in "Common
Cause v. Union of India" (2017) 9 SCC 499.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:
" That the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/
direction for quashing of demand notice as contained in letter
no. 1118/M dated 05.10.2017 (Annexure-6) by the District Mining
Officer, Lohardaga, whereby a sum of Rs.6,54,02,093/- (Rupees six
crore fifty four lacs two thousand & ninety three) only, has been
directed to be paid by 31st December, 2017.
And
Further writ for issuance of any other appropriate writ/order/
direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to or acting
pursuant to the demand notice as contained in letter no. 1118/M
dated 05.10.2017 (Annexure-6) by the District Mining Officer,
Lohardaga."
4. Mr. Rajarshi Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the demand notice dated 5th October 2017 was issued in complete
violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as no notice or an opportunity
of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that it is mandated in law that even an
administrative authority is required to afford an opportunity of hearing if the
order proposed to be passed follows civil consequences.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the amendment
made in MMDR Act to submit that the expression "without lawful
authority" has been explained by way of amendment of 2021 and, in this
context, referred to the judgments in"Zile Singh v. State of Haryana" (2004)
8 SCC 1 and "CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd." (2008) 9 SCC 622,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a clarificatory amendment
would have a retrospective effect. The learned counsel has, therefore,
submitted that the amendment made in MMDR Act has to be given effect.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on
the basis of the judgment in "Common Cause" the petitioner cannot be
saddled with a huge penalty of Rs. 6,54,02,093/- in the garb of sub-section 5
to section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 (in short, MMDR Act).
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has finally referred to the
order dated 21st February 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch
cases, particularly paragraph no.8, to submit that judicial proprietory and
discipline require that either this writ petition is referred before the Hon'ble
Division Bench to be heard alongwith WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch
cases or await a decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
8. Mr. Mohan Dubey, the learned State counsel appears for the
State of Jharkhand.
9. On behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it is contended that the
judgment in "Common Cause" is binding on all authorities in view of
Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that
section 21(5) of the MMDR Act has been interpreted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a particular manner and the "2021 Amendment" by which
the expression "without lawful authority" has been explained shall not apply
in the present case.
10. As regards applicability of the order dated 21st February 2018
passed in WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases, the learned State counsel
refers to an order dated 10th September 2021 passed in WP(C) No. 1407 of
2020 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, to submit that the benefit of the
referral order cannot be given to the petitioner in the present case. Moreover,
the demand has been raised against the petitioner under section 21(5) of
MMDR Act as per guidelines of order dated 2nd August 2017 of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Common Cause".
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the records, this Court has formed an opinion that no indulgence
can be granted in this matter.
12. This writ petition was filed on 23rd January 2018. It was listed
for hearing on 6th February 2018 and, as noticed above, vide order dated 24th
February 2018 this matter has been assigned to this Court.
13. Thereafter, the petitioner has not taken any step for the listing
of this case.
14. As is apparent from the aforesaid proceedings in the present writ
petition, that no interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner.
May be similar grounds are raised in WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch
cases but having regard to the fact that this writ petition remained pending
for more than five years simply on account of inaction on the part of the
petitioner, it would be improper for the Court to refer this writ petition before
the Division Bench at this stage or to keep this writ petition pending awaiting
a decision in WP(C) No. 7286 of 2017 and batch cases. The exercise of
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
be mechanical and automatic in every case. Mere filing of writ petition is not
sufficient and the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers
if there is inaction, negligence or omission on the part of the petitioner. The
benefit of an order or a judgment is not extended automatically to all
similarly situated persons - conduct of an applicant is a relevant
consideration. This Court is of the opinion that may be the petitioner has
made out an arguable case, this is not such a case in which the Court should
exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
15. However, the petitioner may avail of other remedy as available
to him in law and, for that reason, no coercive action shall be taken against
him for the next 90 days.
16. WP(C) No. 341 of 2018 is disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
sudhir
