Remanded

M/S Vikram Construction Co. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2020WRIC/4178/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that an order imposing blacklisting for the first time without prior notice was treated as a show-cause notice. The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh reply within six weeks, with the authority directed to decide within three months and no coercive action allowed for six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit fresh reply within six weeks; order remanded to authority to pass appropriate order within three months; coercive action stayed for six months.

M/S Vikram Construction Co. Vs State of U.P… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4178 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Vikram Construction Co Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

1. In compliance of our order dated 18.02.2020, learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions, which have been taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record as well as the instructions.

¶8

3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶9

“A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 28.12.2019, passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi, cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner.

¶10

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notice dated 26.11.2019 issued by the District Magistrate Jhansi.

¶11

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner, after adjusting the amount for which the petitioner has excavated sand/morrum in respect of MM-11.

¶12

D. Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶13

E. award cost if the petition to the petitioner.”

¶14

4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that pursuant to the notice dated 15.11.2017 issued by the District Magistrate Jhansi/respondent No.2, the petitioner applied for mining area in village Kharvanch, Gata No.434 measuring 24.281 hectares for a quantity of 1,95,000 cubic meters/year. The bid of the petitioner was found highest

¶15

¶16

and thereafter he was issue a letter of intent by the respondent No.2 on 30.12.2017. Subsequently, the environmental clearance certificate was also issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as SEIAA) in favour of the petitioner on 08.03.2018. The lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years, i.e., 19.3.2018 to 18.03.2023. It is stated in the writ petition that as per the demand notice issued by the respondents, the amount of royalty as per the lease agreement was deposited by the petitioner from time to time. A show cause notice dated 12.06.2019 was issued to the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on behalf of the District Magistrate Jhansi. In the aforesaid show cause notice, it is stated in the show cause notice that during the course of the inspection, several irregularities were found in respect of the mining of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same the petitioner was directed to file reply in respect of the allegations made in the show cause notice within 15 days. Further directions were given to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8,36,620/-. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner vide reply dated 29.06.2019. In the aforesaid reply, the allegations made in the show cause notice regarding illegality of mining are absolutely false and incorrect. Subsequently, an order dated 28.12.2019 was passed by the respondent No.2 which is impugned in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.11,31,60,870/- and the firm of the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of two years as per Section 60 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.

¶17

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is absolutely illegal and is in complete violation of principle of natural justice. It is argued that the provisions of Rule 60 will not apply in respect of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further argued that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) but the order impugned has

¶18

¶19

been passed by the District Magistrate which is violation of principles of natural justice. It is further argued that in the show cause notice, there is no whisper regarding blacklisting of the firm of the petitioner but by the order impugned, the firm of the petitioner was also blacklisted for a period of two years. It is further argued that the reply submitted by the petitioner had not at all been taken into consideration by the respondent No.2 while passing the order impugned.

¶20

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that since the lease instalments was not deposited by the petitioner within time. It is further argued that during the course of inspection various irregularities were found and as such show cause notice was rightly issued to the petitioner. It is further argued that the show cause notice though issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) but the same was issued on behalf of the District Magistrate and as such the said show cause notice be treated as show cause notice issued on behalf of the District Magistrate.

¶21

7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

¶22

8. From perusal of the facts as narrated in the writ petition, it is clear that in response to the show cause notice dated 22.06.2019, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner on 29.06.2019 though a reference has been made by the respondent No.2 while passing the order impugned in respect of the rely submitted by the petitioner but the same was at all being taken in to consideration by him while passing the order impugned. It is clear from perusal of the record that in the show cause notice, there is no reference made whatsoever in respect of the blacklisting of the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the firm of the petitioner could not be blacklisted.

¶23

¶24

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that since the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the respondent No.1 while passing the order impugned and since in the impugned order, for the first time a recital has been made for blacklisting of the firm of the petitioner for two years, therefore, the order impugned dated 28.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 be treated as show cause notice.

¶25

10. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh reply along with certified copy of this order in the office of respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today. If such a representation is made within time stipulated hereinabove, the respondent No.1 will pass appropriate orders on the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of submission of reply by the petitioner before him.

¶26

11. For a period of six months or till the decision is taken by the respondent No.1 in the matter whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

¶27

Order Date :- 20.02.2020 saqlain

M/S Vikram Construction Co. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vikram Construction Co. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Sanehi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Guddi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others