Rajasthan High Court

Sarvashri Adinath Stone Crashe vs State Of Raj And Ors (2023:Rj-Jp:37533) on 4 December, 2023

[2023:RJ-JP:37533]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7888/2007

Sarvashri Adinath Stone Crasher through Partner Shri Bharat
Bhushan Jain S/o Shri Raghuvar Dayal Jain, aged about 30
years, R/o Village Nagla Shahjahanpur Tehsil Pahadi District
Bharatpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of
Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Mines
and Geology, Group-2, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.     Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Madhusudan Rajpurohit, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Zakir Hussain, Additional Govt.

Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Order

04/12/2023

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

1. The matter comes up on the application for early

hearing of the case, the same is allowed for the reasons stated

therein. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

main case is taken up on the Board.

2. This petition was filed seeking quashing of notice dated

06.01.2007 and order dated 21.08.2007, directing to deposit a

sum of Rs.13,98,880/- or to show cause and dismissing the

revision petition respectively.

[2023:RJ-JP:37533] (2 of 5) [CW-7888/2007]

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner-firm was engaged

in production of grit and dust. The raw material used was Masonry

stone. The unit of the petitioner was inspected on 18.03.2006 and

21.06.2006 and illegally mined raw material weighing 17486

tonne was detected.

4. The petitioner was served a show cause notice dated

25.07.2006 for producing the relevant record or otherwise the

proceedings for imposition the penalty under Rule 48 of the

Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the

Rules of 1986') shall be initiated.

5. The petitioner responded to the notice on 07.08.2006

giving details of material purchased and the source. Thereafter the

impugned notice dated 06.01.2007 was issued stating that for

illegally mined raw material the penalty amount under Rule 48 of

the Rules of 1986, comes to Rs.13,98,880/-. The petitioner was

asked either to deposit the amount within fifteen days or to show

cause. The revision filed by the petitioner against notice was

dismissed on 21.08.2007.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had responded to the show cause notices but without

passing an order, the impugned notice was issued for recovery of

penalty.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

earlier two notices were issued and Annexure-4 dated 06.01.2007

is not a show cause notice but an order passed under Rule 48 of

the Rules of 1986.

8. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings.

[2023:RJ-JP:37533] (3 of 5) [CW-7888/2007]

9. From the perusal of the Annexure-4 dated 06.01.2007

it is forthcoming that it is a notice by which the petitioner was

granted an opportunity to put-forth his version or to deposit the

penalty. The law is well settled that there cannot be recovery of

penalty without it being backed by penalty order.

10. For the sake of arguments, if the contention of learned

counsel for the respondents is accepted and the Annexure-4 dated

06.01.2007 is treated to be a penalty order, in that case the order

is violative of principles of natural justice. Admittedly the

petitioner responded to the show cause notices and produced the

record. The order is bereft of reasons, gives no justification for

rejecting the version put-forth by the petitioner.

11. It would be appropriate to mention here that Annexure-

4 is on pre-printed proforma with filled blanks, it cannot be held to

be a reasoned order.

12. The Apex Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates

Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and

others reported in [2010(9) SCC 496] held as under:

"a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. 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.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

[2023:RJ-JP:37533] (4 of 5) [CW-7888/2007]

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as serving principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. 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. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision- makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

13. Considering that the recovery has been sought to be

made without passing an order creating a demand, consequently

Annexure-4 06.01.2007 and the impugned revision order are set

aside.

[2023:RJ-JP:37533] (5 of 5) [CW-7888/2007]

14. The matter is remitted back to the Mining Engineer,

Bharatpur to decide the proceedings in pursuance to the show

cause notices afresh.

15. The writ petition is allowed.

16. Considering that this petition is pending since 2007 and

in order to avoid the further delay, let the petitioner appear before

the office of Mining Engineer, Bharatpur on 20 th December, 2023 at