Disposed

Tattva and Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Collector of Mumbai City

Bombay HC25 Apr 2024WP/2460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a penalty and fine for unauthorised mining of minor minerals imposed without letting the petitioner respond to a post-hearing site inspection report. The High Court found this breached principles of natural justice, set aside the order, quashed consequential actions, and remanded for fresh hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tattva and Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd. vs State… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKARDate: PALKAR 2024.04.25 22:38:05 +0530 P1.WPL.12692.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12692 OF 2024

¶4

M/s. Tattva & Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shubham Gangan i/b. Harshad Sathe, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶9

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶10

DATE : APRIL 25, 2024

¶11

P. C.

¶12

Mentioned. Not on Board.

¶13

The above praecipe has been moved for Speaking to the

¶14

Minutes of Order dated 23^rd April, 2024.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

¶16

submitted that the name of the Petitioner has been misspelled. The word “Tattya” should be substituted with the word “Tattva” .

¶17

Page 1 of 5 APRIL 25, 2024

¶18

Aarti Palkar

¶19

P1.WPL.12692.2024.doc

¶20

Considering the aforesaid submission, in the Order dated 23^rd

¶21

April, 2024, in the cause title, the word “Tattya” shall be substituted with the word “Tattva” .

¶22

No other correction is sought. The correction shall be carried out in the original order as well as in the copy uploaded on the server.

¶23

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶24

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶25

For the sake of convenience the order dated 10th November, 2023 (as corrected) is reproduced hereunder:-

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶27

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12692 OF 2024

¶28

M/s Tattva & Mittal Lifespaces Pvt Ltd

¶29

…Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶32

…Respondents

¶33

Page 2 of 5 APRIL 25, 2024

¶34

Aarti Palkar

¶35

P1.WPL.12692.2024.doc

¶36

Mr. Vishal Kanade, a/w Shyam Sunder Patil, Mumtaz Ahmed Yonus, i/b Harshad Sathe, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶37

Mr. A.L. Patki, Addl. GP, for Respondent-State.

¶38

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : APRIL 23, 2024

¶39

PC :

¶40

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 12^th January, 2024 passed by Respondent No.2. By the impugned order, the Petitioner is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.85,23,071/- for unauthorized mining/transportation of 1924.4 brass of minor minerals and a fine of Rs.11,54,640/(aggregating to a total of Rs.96,77,711/-).

¶41

It is not in dispute that in the present case, a show cause notice dated 1^st January, 2024 was issued to the Petitioner and pursuant to which a hearing was given on 4^th January, 2024. After the said hearing, a site inspection was carried out on 5^th January, 2024. Without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to deal with the site inspection report, the impugned order has been passed by Respondent No.2 on 12^th January, 2024, and that too relying upon that very same site inspection report.

¶42

Page 3 of 5 APRIL 25, 2024

¶43

Aarti Palkar

¶44

P1.WPL.12692.2024.doc

¶45

It was the case of Mr. Kanade, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, that the impugned order could not rely upon the site inspection report which was carried out after a hearing was given to the Petitioner. This itself would amount to a breach of principles of natural justice as the Petitioner was never given an opportunity to deal with the site inspection report. This being the case, he submitted that on this limited ground alone the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter can be remanded back to Respondent No.2 for a fresh hearing after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to deal with the site inspection report dated 5^th January, 2024.

¶46

Mr. Patki, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State, fairly did not dispute this factual position. He submitted that it is correct that the site inspection was carried out on 5^th January, 2024, and it is on the basis of this site inspection report that penalty and a fine has been levied on the Petitioner.

¶47

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties at some length and having perused the papers in the Writ Petition, we find that impugned order cannot be sustained in light of the fact that it relies upon a site inspection report which was carried out after a hearing was given to the Petitioner. This, to our mind, would clearly

¶48

Page 4 of 5 APRIL 25, 2024

¶49

Aarti Palkar

¶50

P1.WPL.12692.2024.doc

¶51

be a breach of the principles of natural justice, which would make the impugned order vulnerable to challenge.

¶52

In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 12^th January, 2024. We direct that Respondent No.2 shall give a fresh hearing to the Petitioner after providing a copy of the site inspection report and give an opportunity to the Petitioner to deal with the same. Once this process is undertaken, Respondent No.2 is free to pass a fresh order.

¶53

It is needless to clarify that since the order dated 12^th January, 2024, is set aside, any consequential actions taken pursuant there to, are also quashed and set aside.

¶54

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶56

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶57

Page 5 of 5 APRIL 25, 2024

¶58

Aarti Palkar

Tattva and Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Collector of Mumbai City

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tattva and Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through Collector of Mumbai City

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nirmala Pillai vs Shubham Builders

Kaushik Gandhi vs Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra, Mumbai Western

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Hal Offshore Ltd.

M/S. Assets Realty thou its partner Vs the Tahasildar, Ambarnath and Anr.

Navin Popatlal Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Ravi Ramesh Rohira vs State of Maharashtra