Jharkhand High Court
Md. Muktar Momin vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1011 of 2025
Md. Muktar Momin, aged about 38 years, son of Daulat Momin, resident
of Village-Rampur, PO & PS-Pakur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines
and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O.& P.S. Doranda,
District- Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834002.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O & P.S-Pakur, District Pakur, Jharkhand
4. The District Mining Officer, Pakur having its office at District
Collectorate, Pakur, P.O & P.S-Pakur, District Pakur, Jharkhand
............ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
For the Resp-State of Jharkhand: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
------
C.A.V on 26.08.2025 Pronounced on 26/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including
Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside order contained
in Memo No. 1991/M dated 12.09.2022 [Annexure-7] passed
by District Mining Officer, Pakur, wherein in alleged exercise
of power under Rule 54(6) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004, penalty amounting to Rs. 22,48,135/-
being twice the value of mineral allegedly illegally extracted by
petitioner has been imposed and, further, penalty under Rule
42(1) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 of Rs. 2,000/- has been imposed
for allegedly filing incorrect monthly returns."
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the
writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:
(i) The petitioner has been allotted mining lease measuring an
area of 7.85 acres situated at Mouza Barmasia within Circle-
Hiranpur, bearing Plot No. 7, 17 to 23, 33 to 35, 37 to 40,
41 to 42, 44 to 46 and 47 for a period of 10 years with effect
from 25.10.2017 to 24.10.2017.
(ii) After grant of mining lease in favour of petitioner, petitioner
has been carrying out mining activity strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 [hereinafter referred to as 'JMMC
Rules, 2004' for short] including Environmental Clearance
Certificate and Consent to Operate Certificate issued in
favour of petitioner.
(iii) The petitioner in terms of mining lease is carrying out
excavation of mineral and is regularly submitting monthly
returns showing correct figures and quantum of extracted
minerals.
(iv) It is stated that a Sectional Measurement-cum-Local
Inspection was carried out in the mines of petitioner on
30.07.2022 by a team constituting of Circle Officer, Hiranpur,
Circle Inspector, Hiranpur and Revenue Sub-Inspector
including Amin of Hiranpur of District Pakur. It was alleged
that during course of Sectional Measurement which was
undertaken, it was found that only about 68,65,995 cubic feet
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
of stone was found to have been excavated by petitioner,
whereas as per returns submitted by petitioner upto July,
2022, petitioner reflected total excavation of stone from its
mining lease area of 70,70,000 cubic feet. Accordingly, it was
alleged that petitioner illegally excavated mineral to the tune
of 2,04,005 cubic feet of stone from other than its mining
lease area and transported the same by use of transportation
challan which was not permitted. Apart from the above, it was
alleged that 80,000 cubic feet of stone was found to be
excavated from outside the mining lease area of petitioner
and, thus, petitioner was directed to show cause within a
period of seven days as to why penalty under Rule 54(6) of
JMMC Rules be not imposed upon him for illegal excavation
and transportation of mineral of total quantity of 2,84,005
cubic feet @ twice the value of mineral.
(v) Accordingly, show-cause dated 05.08.2022 has been issued
and the petitioner on receipt of the aforesaid show cause
notice submitted its reply before District Mining Officer,
Pakur, and denied allegations leveled against him vide its
reply dated 03.09.2022.
(vi) Thereafter, petitioner has preferred a writ petition being
W.P.(C) 6110 of 2012 and the writ application filed by
petitioner was taken up for consideration by this Hon'ble
Court on 15.07.2024 and, on the said date, the writ petition
challenging show cause notice was disposed of by this
Hon'ble Court in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
5362 of 2022 (M/s. R. P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors.).
(vii) However, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2022
titled "M/s. R. P. Singh Stone Works v. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors." pertained to a completely different issue
relating to consideration of extension of the period of mining
lease on account of delayed issuance of Environmental
Clearance Certificate. It is an error apparent from the records
of the case which transpired while disposing of the said writ
application.
(viii) It is stated that writ petitioner should have filed a Review
Petition for review of the order dated 15.07.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 6110 of 2022 titled "Md. Muktar Momin v. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors." but, since, in the aforementioned
writ application only show cause notice was under challenge
and, subsequently, show cause notice has already culminated
into a final order, and, there is a change in the cause of action
due to subsequent events, petitioner has been advised to file
the present writ application challenging impugned order
which has been passed subsequent to issuance of show cause
notice.
(ix) It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the reply
submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 proceeded
to pass the impugned order without even considering
the reply filed by the petitioner and without due application
of mind and proceeded to impose penalty amounting to
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
Rs. 22,48,135/- in terms of Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules,
2004 and further imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- for allegedly
not filing correct monthly returns.
(x) It is further case of the petitioner that the the impugned order
contained in Memo No. 1991/M dated 12.09.2022 has been
passed by the respondent-authorities in utter violation of
principle of natural justice as petitioner was not supplied the
copy of the Inspection Report and/or Sectional Measurement
Report and without supply of relied upon document,
impugned order has been passed and, on this ground, the
same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.
(xi) It is stated that in almost identical matters were considered by
this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment and order dated
30.11.2023, passed in W.P.(C) 3080 of 2022 wherein
demands made in pursuant to inspection and alleged
measurement were set aside by this Hon'ble Court on the
ground that the relied upon document i.e. Inspection
Report/Sectional Measurement Report was not furnished to
the petitioners of the said case.
3. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner-company for quashing of the impugned order dated
12.09.2022 issued by the respondent no.3-District Mining officer,
Pakur.
Submission on behalf of the writ petitioner:
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned
decision issued under the signature of District Mining Officer, Pakur:
(i) The impugned order contained in Memo No. 1991/M dated
12.09.2022 has been passed by the respondent-authorities in
utter violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioner was
not supplied the copy of the Inspection Report and/or Sectional
Measurement Report and without supply of relied upon
documents, impugned order has been passed and, on this
ground, the same is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Further, the Respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned
order without even considering the reply filed by the petitioner
and without due application of mind and proceeded to impose
penalty amounting to Rs. 22,48,135/- in terms of Rule 54(6) of
the JMMC Rules, 2004.
(iii) The District Mining Officer is having no jurisdiction to issue
such demand because under rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rule, 2004,
the respondent has no power or the power has not been conferred
upon the respondent no.3 to impose penalty in such cases and,
therefore, petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed in the instant
petition.
(iv) It has further been contended that the punishment with respect to
the illegal mining or excess mining as referred in Section 4 sub-
section 1(A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (herein after referred to as MMDR Act,
1957") is to be dealt with under the provision of Section 21(1) of
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
the MMDR Act, 1957, in which, it has been provided that
whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or
subsection (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with
fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
The submission, therefore, has been made that save and except
the provision as contained under Section 21(1) of the MMDR
Act, 1957 there is no other provision under the MMDR Act, 1957
to inflict punishment and as such the illegal doer is only to be
punished on the basis of reference of punishment as referred in
Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957.
(v) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner based upon the
aforesaid ground has submitted that the impugned order,
therefore, suffers from an error.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
5. Per contra, Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, the learned AC to AAG-III
appearing for the respondent-State to defend the impugned order has
raised the following grounds:
(i) The reply of petitioner was found unsatisfactory and therefore
the District Mining Officer, Pakur issued a demand notice dated
12.09.2022, invoking the Rule 54 (6) of the JMMC Rules, 2004
(as amended) imposed a penalty amount calculating it as the
double value of the dispatched stone mineral, to the tune of
Rs. 22,48,135/- and under Rule 42(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004.
(ii) The petitioner had challenged the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6110 of
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2024 and on
perusal of order dated 15.07.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6110
of 2022, it would be evident that the petitioner has relied upon
the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5362 of 2022
and, now the petitioner is taking a stand that the issue in W.P.
(C) No. 5362 of 2022 is completely different.
(iii) Further, during the pendency of W.P. (C) No. 6110 of 2022,
wherein the petitioner had challenged the show cause notice
issued to the petitioner, the final demand notice was issued
against the petitioner vide memo no. 1991, dated 12.09.2022, but
the petitioner did not challenge the memo no. 1991, dated
12.09.2022.
(iv) The impugned order dated 12.09.2022 issued by the District
Mining Officer, Pakur has been passed in accordance with law,
the argument, therefore, has been advanced that if the provision
of MMDR Act, 1957 along with the rules formulated by virtue
of Section 15 of the Act 1957 will be taken into consideration
together, then it would be evident that the State is also competent
enough to inflict penalty.
(v) The impugned order was passed on 12.09.2022, but the
petitioner stayed silent on that for more than 2 years. Therefore,
the instant writ application may be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
(vi) It has been contended that argument has been advanced on behalf
of the petitioner is absolutely on the wrong premise and further
the petitioner has not availed alternate remedy available to the
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
petitioner under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, wherein a
revision lies before the Mines Commissioner.
(vii) The learned Counsel for the respondent based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no
interference and the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of
delay:
6. It is pleaded that in the month of January, 2025, when
petitioner contacted its Advocate regarding status of the earlier writ
petition i.e. W.P(C) No. 6110 of 2022, the petitioner was handed over
internet copy of the order dated 15.07.2024 passed in the said writ
petition and it is only thereafter, petitioner became aware that the said
writ petition had been disposed of. Thereafter, petitioner has filed the
instant writ application within a short period of one month from the
date of knowledge of disposal of the earlier writ application. Hence,
there is no deliberate and/or intentional delay on the part of the
petitioner.
Analysis:
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the
counter-affidavit as also the finding recorded in the impugned order
passed by the District Mining Officer.
8. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has
been allotted mining lease measuring an area of 7.85 acres situated at
Mouza Barmasia within Circle-Hiranpur and after grant of mining
lease, petitioner has been carrying out mining activity strictly in
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
accordance with the provisions of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2004 ['JMMC Rules, 2004' for short].
9. The petitioner in terms of mining lease is carrying out
excavation of mineral and is regularly submitting monthly returns
showing correct figures and quantum of extracted minerals.
10. However a Sectional Measurement-cum-Local Inspection
was carried out in the mines of petitioner on 30.07.2022 by a team
constituting of Circle Officer, Hiranpur, Circle Inspector, Hiranpur and
Revenue Sub-Inspector including Amin of Hiranpur of District Pakur
and during course of Sectional Measurement it was found that only
about 68,65,995 cubic feet of stone was found to have been excavated
by petitioner, whereas as per returns submitted by petitioner upto July,
2022, the petitioner reflected total excavation of stone from its mining
lease area of 70,70,000 cubic feet.
11. Accordingly, it was alleged that petitioner illegally excavated
mineral to the tune of 2,04,005 cubic feet of stone from other than its
mining lease area and transported the same by use of transportation
challan which was not permitted. Apart from the above, it was alleged
that 80,000 cubic feet of stone was found to be excavated from outside
the mining lease area of petitioner and, thus, petitioner was directed to
show cause within a period of seven days.
12. Accordingly show-cause dated 05.08.2022 has been issued
and the petitioner submitted its reply before District Mining Officer,
Pakur, and denied allegations leveled against him vide its reply dated
03.09.2022 but it was not found satisfactory.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
13. Thereafter petitioner has preferred a writ petition being
W.P.(C) 6110 of 2012 and the writ application filed by petitioner was
taken up for consideration by this Hon'ble Court on 15.07.2024 and, on
the said date, the writ petition challenging show cause notice was
disposed of by this Hon'ble Court in terms of the order passed in
W.P.(C) No. 5362 of 2022 titled "M/s. R. P. Singh Stone Works v. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors.".
14. However, as per the averment made in the writ petition
wherein it has been averred that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.
5362 of 2022 pertained to a completely different issue relating to
consideration of extension of the period of mining lease on account of
delayed issuance of Environmental Clearance Certificate and it is an
error apparent from the records of the case which transpired while
disposing of the said writ application.
15. Subsequently, show cause notice has already culminated into
a final order dated 12.09.2022 and, therefore, the present writ
application has been filed challenging the impugned order which has
been passed subsequent to issuance of show cause notice.
16. The leaned counsel has foremost taken the ground that the
District Mining Officer has no power to impose the penalty, therefore,
the order impugned is fit to be quashed.
17. Further ground has been taken that orders of penalty have
been imposed pursuant to Inspection/Sectional Measurement without
even granting any opportunity of being heard and/or without supplying
the copy of the Inspection/Sectional Measurement Report.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
18. The learned counsel in order to substantiate this limb of
argument has emphatically contended that almost identical matters
were considered by this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment and order
dated 30.11.2023, passed in W.P.(C) No. 3080 of 2022 wherein
demands made in pursuant to inspection and alleged measurement were
set aside by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the relied upon
document, i.e., Inspection Report/Sectional Measurement Report was
not furnished to the petitioners in the said case.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State has
contended that the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 issued by the
District Mining Officer, Pakur has been passed in accordance with law,
the argument, therefore, has been advanced that if the provision of
MMDR Act, 1957 along with the rules formulated by virtue of Section
15 of the Act 1957 will be taken into consideration together, then it
would be evident that the State is also competent enough to inflict
penalty.
20. It has further been contended that the reply of petitioner was
found unsatisfactory and, therefore, the District Mining Officer, Pakur
issued a demand notice dated 12.09.2022, invoking the Rule 54 (6) of
the JMMC Rules, 2004 (as amended) and imposed a penalty calculating
it as the double value of the dispatched stone mineral, to the tune of
Rs. 22,48,135/- and under Rule 42(1) of JMMC Rules, 2004.
21. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on
behalf of both the parties is required to consider the following issues:
(i) Whether the action of the State in inflicting punishment of
imposing penalty in terms of the provision of Rule 54 (6) of the
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
JMMC Rules, 2004 can be said to be just and proper in absence
of conferment of power.
(ii) Whether in the instant case before imposing penalty on the writ
petitioner or passing the impugned order dated 12.09.2022, the
element of the natural justice has been complied.
(iii) Whether the judgment dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Court in
W.P(C) No.3080 of 2022 upon which the reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the present case as per the
argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner.
22. So far, the issue no.(i) is concerned, it requires to refer herein
that this Court has already adjudicated the said issue in the writ petition
being W.P. (C) No. 2859 of 2022 vide which was disposed of vide order
dated 18.09.2025 wherein it has been categorically held that by virtue
of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has
been conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its price
if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned for the
unauthorized occupation of the land. It has further been observed that
if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors [(2017) 9 SCC 499]
will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6)
as also the purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that
the power has been conferred to the State Government to recover the
amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for recovery of the
amount by the State Government which itself suggest that the authority,
if conferred with the power, is having jurisdiction to raise the demand
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
in exercise of Power conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004, for ready
reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted as under:
"81. It also requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section
21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government has been
conferred with the power to recover the mineral itself or its
price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax owned
for the unauthorized occupation of the land. Herein, the State
Government means the functionaries of the State, i.e., the
executive authority. Accordingly, power has been conferred
upon the DMO by virtue of the notification dated 6th May,
2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance
of notification dated 6th May, 2025 that is the reason
notification has been issued conferring power upon the
representative(s) of the State Government and therefore, the
State Government i.e., representative(s) of the State
Government has power to raise demand under Section 54(6)
of the Rules, 2004.
82. So far as the power which has been exercised by the
District Mining Officer under the provision of Rule 54(8) now it
is 54(6) is concerned wherein the ground has been taken that
under Rule 54(6) the District Mining Officer has no jurisdiction,
but if the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the case of Common Cause (Supra) will be taken into
consideration along with the provision of Rule 54(6) as also the
purport of Section 21(5) of the Act, 1957, it is evident that the
power has been conferred to the State Government to recover
the amount. Since the provision has been stipulated for
recovery of the amount by the State Government which itself
suggest that the authority, if conferred with the power, is
having jurisdiction to raise the demand in exercise of Power
conferred under Rule 54(6) of Rule 2004."
23. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that this Court has held
that by virtue of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, the State
Government has been conferred with the power to recover the mineral
itself or its price if already sold, along with any rent, royalty, or tax. It
has further been observed by this Court that power has been conferred
upon the District Mining Officer by virtue of the notification dated 6th
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
May, 2025, although there was no notification prior to the issuance of
notification dated 6th May, 2025 and that is the reason notification has
been issued conferring power upon the representative(s) of the State
Government and, therefore, the State Government, i.e.,
representative(s) of the State Government has power to raise demand
under Section 54(6) of the Rules, 2004.
24. Accordingly, in the light of the order passed by this Court in
the aforesaid writ petition of which the relevant paragraphs are being
quoted hereinabove, it is evident that District Mining Officer of the
concerned district has power/jurisdiction to impose the penalty under
rule 54(6) of the Rule 2004 as amended time to time.
25. The issues no.(i) as framed by this Court are answered
accordingly.
26. Now this Court is adverting to the issue nos. (ii) and (iii) and
since the said issues are interlinked and, as such, are being taken up
together for their consideration.
27. Before entering in to merit of the aforesaid issue, it requires
to refer herein that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an
opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of
natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party
concerned who is going to be adversely affected, reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of "Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and
Anr.", reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein, the proposition has been
laid down that even if there is no statutory provision requiring an
opportunity to be given, in order to follow the cardinal principle of
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
natural justice, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the party
concerned who is going to be adversely affected.
28. Such decision has been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court
while dealing with Section 10(3) of the Indian Passport Act, wherein,
the validity of the said provision was challenged on the ground that
there is no provision to provide an opportunity of hearing before
impounding the passport. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
upheld the constitutional validity of the said provision, but has laid
down the proposition that even if there is no provision or stipulation
made in the statutory provision, then also, it will be the bounded duty
of the concerned authority to provide opportunity of hearing before
taking any adverse decision, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph
of the said judgment needs to be referred, which reads as under:-
"9. We may commence the discussion of this question with a
few general observations to emphasise the increasing
importance of natural justice in the field of administrative law.
Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to
invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years
it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas
of administrative action. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke of
this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham
Club: "We can, I think, take pride in what has been done in
recent periods and particularly in the field of administrative
law by invoking and by applying these principles which we
broadly classify under the designation of natural justice. Many
testing problems as to their application yet re-remain to be
solved. But I affirm that the area of administrative action is but
one area in which the principles are to be deployed. Nor are
they to be invoked only when procedural failures are shown.
Does natural justice qualify to be described as a 'majestic'
conception? I believe it does. Is it just a rhetorical but vague
phrase which can be employed, when needed, to give a gloss of
assurance? I believe that it is very much more. If it can be
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
summarised as being fair-play in action -- who could wish that
it would ever be out of action? It denotes that the law is not only
to be guided by reason and by logic but that its purpose will not
be fulfilled; it lacks more exalted inspiration. And then again,
in his speech in the House of Lords in Wiseman v. Borneman,
the learned Law Lord said in words of inspired felicity:
"... that the conception of natural justice should at all stages
guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely an
acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy of the law.
We often speak of the rules of natural justice. But there is
nothing rigid or mechanical about them. What they
comprehend has been analysed and described in many
authorities. But any analysis must bring into relief rather their
spirit and their inspiration than any precision of definition or
precision as to application. We do not search for prescriptions
which will lay down exactly what must, in various divergent
situations, be done. The principles and procedures are to be
applied which, in any particular situation or set of
circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it
has been said, is only 'fair play in action'. Nor do we wait for
directions from Parliament. The common law has abundant
riches : there may we find what Byles, J., called 'the justice of
the common law' ".
Thus, the soul of natural justice is "fair-play in action" and
that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout
the democratic world. In the United States, the right to an
administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of
fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that
"fair-play in action" demands that before any prejudicial or
adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an
opportunity to be heard. The rule was stated by Lord Denning,
MR in these terms in Schmidt v. Secretary of State or Home
Affairs -- "where a public officer has power to deprive a
person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is
that it has not to be done without his being given an opportunity
of being heard and of making representations on his own
behalf". The same rule also prevails in other Commonwealth
countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has even
gained access to the United Nations (vide American Journal of
International Law, Vol. 67, p. 479). Magarry, J., describes
natural justice "as a distillate of due process of law" (vide
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
Fontaine v. Chastarton16). It is the quintessence of the process
of justice inspired and guided by "fair-play in action". If we
look at the speeches of the various Law Lords in Wiseman case
it will be seen that each one of them asked the question
"whether in the particular circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal acted unfairly so that it could be said that their
procedure did not match with what justice demanded", or, was
the procedure adopted by the Tribunal "in all the
circumstances unfair?" The test adopted by every Law Lord
was whether the procedure followed was fair in all the
circumstances and "fair-play in action" required that an
opportunity should be given to the taxpayer "to see and reply
to the counter-statement of the Commissioners" before
reaching the conclusion that "there is a prima facie case
against him". The inquiry must, therefore, always be: does
fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard
should be given to the person affected?"
29. We have proceeded to examine the factual aspect in the light
of the aforesaid proposition of law as also to assess the fact that if the
Sectional Measurement Report and or Enquiry Report have not been
given, can it be said to be violation of principle of natural justice, as the
ground has been taken in filing the writ petition.
30. This Court, for the aforesaid purpose, has considered the
order impugned dated 12.09.2022 and found therefrom that the very
basis of the said demand notice/impugned order is the Sectional
Measurement Report and or Enquiry Report, based upon the finding of
the said reports, show cause has been issued and reply was submitted
which not found satisfactory, impugned demand notice has been issued
casting liability upon the writ petitioner with a direction to make
payment of the said amount within fifteen days, failing which, the
proceeding accordance to law will be initiated.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
31. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the principle of
natural justice is to be considered in broad-way, since, if the principle
of natural justice is to be observed which means that an adequate and
sufficient opportunity is to be provided to the party concerned and the
moment, the adequate and sufficient opportunity is to be given which
incurs a right upon the party concerned to have a document in entirety,
which is the basis of such demand.
32. Further, if the basis of calculation or decision so taken for the
purpose of issuing impugned order is not being provided and merely a
show cause notice is being issued without furnishing Sectional
Measurement report and or Enquiry report, which according to our
considered view, cannot be construed to be observance of principle of
natural justice in entirety so as to provide an adequate and sufficient
opportunity to the party concerned.
33. The fact about non-supply of the Sectional Measurement
Report and or Enquiry report has specifically been pleaded by the writ
petitioners in paragraph-11 of the writ petition. It has also been pleaded
that the signature of the petitioner has also not been taken in the said
report.
34. The State has filed counter-affidavit and while responding to
statement made at paragraph-11 to the writ petition, wherein, the fact
about non-supply of Sectional Measurement Report and or Enquiry
Report as mentioned, has not been categorically disputed. Further the
show cause dated 05.08.2022 has been appended in the counter-
affidavit but therein also there is no reference of Sectional
Measurement Report and or Enquiry Report as enclosure.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
35. Therefore, this Court is not hesitant to hold that while issuing
the impugned order dated 12.09.2022 to the writ petitioner by not
supplying the Sectional Measurement Report and or Enquiry Report
cannot be said to be observance of principle of natural justice in its
strict adherence.
36. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his
reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3080 of 2022
dated 30.11.2023 which has been appended as annexure-4 to the instant
writ petition.
37. In order to verify the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner this Court has gone through the said judgment passed in
W.P.(C) 3080 of 2022. It is evident from the factual aspect of the said
case that the demand has been made in consequence of the decision
taken of less royalty calculated based upon inspection conducted as
referred in the inspection report and such demand was raised on the
basis of a report of inspection said to have done by the department. It is
stated that no notice whatsoever has been issued by the respondents
about the date of inspection and in spite of repeated demands, the
respondent did not provide inspection report or the method of
calculation of less payment of royalty and amount imposed.
38. Being aggrieved, the parties have approached this Court on
the ground of violation of the natural justice as Inspection Report has
not been supplied to the petitioners. The Court after appreciating the
pleading and material available on record has quashed the said demand
notice on the ground of non-observance of the principle of the natural
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
justice. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are being quoted as under:
"29. We are of the view that the principle of natural justice is to
be considered in broad-way, since, if the principle of natural
justice is to be observed which means that an adequate and
sufficient opportunity is to be provided to the party concerned and
the moment, the adequate and sufficient opportunity is to be given
which incurs a right upon the party concerned to have a document
in entirety, which is the basis of such demand.
30. If the basis of calculation or decision so taken for the purpose
of issuing demand notice is not being provided and merely a show
cause notice is being issued without appending the inspection
report, which according to our considered view, cannot be
construed to be observance of principle of natural justice in
entirety so as to provide an adequate and sufficient opportunity
to the party concerned.
31. The fact about non-supply of the inspection report has
specifically been pleaded by the writ petitioners in paragraph-16
of the writ petition. 32. The State has filed counter affidavit and
while responding to statement made at paragraph-16, 20 & 21 to
the writ petition, wherein, the fact about non-supply of inspection
report as mentioned, has not been categorically disputed.
Further, the learned counsel for the respondent State is fair
enough to submit that the inspection report has not been supplied.
Neutral Citation
33. Therefore, this Court is not hesitant to hold that while issuing
the demand notices to one or the other writ petitioners by not
supplying the inspection report, cannot be said to be observance
of principle of natural justice in its strict adherence.
34. Hence, we are of the view that the demand notices are
required to be interfered with.
35. Accordingly, the demand notices, appended as Annexure-1
series, are hereby quashed and set aside."
39. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court
is of the view that issue of the said case was almost identical to the
instant case, therefore, the ratio of the said case is applicable in the fact
and circumstances of the instant case.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
40. Accordingly issue nos. (ii) and (iii) are answered herein.
41. On the basis of discussions made hereinabove, we are of the
view that the impugned notice dated 12.09.2022 is required to be
interfered with.
42. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 12.09.2022
appended as Annexure-7 is hereby quashed and set aside.
43. Since, we are interfering with the impugned notice dated
12.09.2022 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice,
hence, the requirement will be to remit the matter before the District
Mining Officer, Pakur.
44. The District Mining Officer, Pakur, therefore, is directed to
issue show-cause notice reflecting therein the irregularities said to be
committed by the petitioners along with the relevant documents upon
which the reliances are being placed.
45. The said show-cause notices are to be given to the writ
petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.
46. The petitioners are to respond to the said show-cause notice
within a further period of three weeks.
47. The concerned District Mining Officer shall pass appropriate
order, in accordance with law within a further period of three weeks.
48. However, it is made clear that if no response in pursuance to
the aforesaid show-cause notice will be furnished by the writ petitioner,
then the District Mining Officer, Pakur after completion of the period
of three weeks shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.
2025:JHHC:30668-DB
49. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
50. In view of the above, the interim order dated 09.07.2025
stands vacated.
51. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:26/09/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
Uploaded on 27.09.2025
