Allowed

Neelkanth Mining v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2019WRIC/16757/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that an order suspending a mining lease without providing an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and quashed it.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the District Magistrate suspending the petitioner's lease is set aside and remitted to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order within four weeks.

Neelkanth Mining Vs State of U P and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16757 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Neelkanth Mining Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

The petitioner carries on the business of the mining operation, he is a proprietor of the firm, it has instituted this proceeding for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra whereby his lease has been suspended. It is stated that petitioner has participated in the auction in pursuance of the Government Order dated 12.12.2017, the application for mining lease where invited through E-tender cum E-auction in respect of Building Stone (Dolo Stone), Khanda, Gitti and Boulders under Chapter IV of the U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for short Rules 1963) pursuant thereto the petitioner made an application in respect of the Arazi No.7536 Ga area 16.970 hectare and Arazi No.5593 Ka area 8.230 hectare situated at Village Billi Markundi, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. The petitioner was found highest bidder and the lease was executed in his favour on 11.12.2018 for ten years, a copy of lease deed is on the record.

¶6

The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without furnishing any opportunity to him.

¶7

Shri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Madan Lal Srivastava for petitioner submitted that District Magistrate in his impugned order has referred to some judgments of this Court and the order of the National Green Tribunal. He has invited our attention to the orders referred by District Magistrate and the National Green Tribunal to demonstrate that those orders pertain to the forest area and in the case of the petitioner, the forest department has issued a no objection certificate in respect of the Plot No.5593 Ka on 28th April, 2018, the said order is also on the record. It is urged by Shri Jain that this aspect of the matter has been glossed over by District Magistrate and without application of mind he has passed the impugned order suspending the mining operation of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has already invested about Rs.8 crore.

¶8

Our attention has been drawn to the averment made in the writ petition in paragraph no. 44 that the order has been passed in disregard to the principles of natural justice.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who has received the instructions.

¶10

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the instructions, which has been taken on the record, we are of the opinion that from the impugned order and from the instructions it appear to us that the order has been passed without furnishing opportunity to the petitioner. We have also perused the order of the National Green Tribunal, which indicates that the said order is in

¶11

contrast to the mining operation in the forest area, which has been notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927.

¶12

It is a trite law that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after furnishing the opportunity to the person concerned, if an order has been passed without furnishing any opportunity, the order becomes arbitrary and illegal. The reference will be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors., (1967) 2 SCR 625 and A.K. Kraipak & others v. Union of India & others, AIR 1970 SC 150, which has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court and by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court also.

¶13

In view of the above, without adverting to the issue raised on the merits of the case, we are satisfied that the order needs to be set aside on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order and remit back to the matter to District Magistrate, who shall pass a fresh order after furnishing opportunity to petitioner expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶14

The writ petition is allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 30.5.2019 A.N. Mishra

Neelkanth Mining v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelkanth Mining v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ratan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Sharma Vs Sheetal Sharma

Nitisri Build Track Private Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Srivastava Vs Sangita Alias Santosh Srivastava