Rajasthan High Court
Nawal Singh Ratnawat Son Of Shri Narayan ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through The ... on 5 December, 2023
[2023:RJ-JP:37932]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21495/2018
Nawal Singh Ratnawat Son of Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About
65 Years, Resident Of 1St Floor, Manokamna Building, In Front
Of Hotel Las Vegas, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Mining Engineer, Mining and Geology Department, Karauli
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr.Jaivardhan
Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Order
05/12/2023
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated
12.05.2015, demand notice dated 11.08.2015 and order dated
04.09.2018 dismissing the revision petition.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was a successful
bidder for royalty collection contract. Petitioner was awarded
contract for collecting the Environment Management Fund (EMF)
on the mineral bajri in the nadi and naala in the revenue boundary
of Tehsil Sapotara District Karauli for the period 01.04.2011 to
31.03.2013.
3. Vide communication received on 27.02.2013, petitioner
was directed to collect royalty and fee along-with EMF and to
furnish the bank guarantee and FDR in view of revised contract.
[2023:RJ-JP:37932] (2 of 4) [CW-21495/2018]
On successful completion of contract the petitioner was issued No
Dues Certificate, the FDR and bank guarantee were released.
4. The audit vide memo dated 31.10.2014 raised an
objection that amount of EMF for the tune of Rs.17,77,283/- is to
be recovered from the petitioner.
5. The respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 12.05.2015
for depositing the amount and enclosed the audit objection. The
petitioner filed reply. Demand Notice dated 11.08.2015 was issued
to the petitioner to deposit the amount within fifteen days.
Revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 04.09.2018.
Hence the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had responded to the show cause notices but without
passing an order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the
amount of Rs.17,77,283/-.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
Annexure-9 dated 11.08.2015 is not a show cause but an order
creating a demand.
8. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings.
9. From the perusal of the Annexure-9 dated 11.08.2015
it is forthcoming that it is a demand notice by which the petitioner
was directed to deposit the amount.
10. For the sake of arguments, if the contention of learned
counsel for the respondents is accepted and the Annexure-9 dated
11.08.2015 is treated to be an order, even then the order is
violative of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioner
responded to the show cause notices. The order is bereft of
[2023:RJ-JP:37932] (3 of 4) [CW-21495/2018]
reasons, gives no justification for rejecting the version put-forth
by the petitioner.
11. 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.
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
[2023:RJ-JP:37932] (4 of 4) [CW-21495/2018]
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".
12. Considering that the recovery has been sought to be
made without passing an order creating a demand, Annexure-9
dated 11.08.2015 and the impugned revision order are set aside.
13. The matter is remitted back to the Mining Engineer
Karauli to decide the proceedings in pursuance to the show cause
notice afresh.
14. The writ petition is allowed.
15. Considering that this petition is pending since 2018 and
in order to avoid the further delay, let the petitioner is apprise
representative or counsel appear before the office of Mining
Engineer, Karauli on 20th December, 2023 at 11:00 AM. The Mining
Engineer shall make an endeavour to decide the proceedings
within three months thereafter.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN), J
HS/188
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
