AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
Initially the writ petition was filed seeking quashment of the notice dated 20.01.2020 issued by the Revenue Inspector, Pamgarh, District Janjgir
Champa calling for the petitioners for remaining present for demarcation proceeding. However, on the very next day after the writ petition was filed,
the respondents also put a lock and sealed the Crusher Plant of the petitioners. Therefore, the have petitioners subsequently amended the writ petition
and challenged the sealing of the Crusher Plant also.
It is the specific contention of the petitioners that they have a duly established Crusher Plant with all requisite formalities having been completed.
The Crusher Plant situates at village Sukulpara, Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa. According to the petitioners, they had received a notice on
18.01.2020 from the Mining Officer to produce all relevant mining records including mining lease etc. The petitioners sent their representative before
the Collector and prayed for two weeks time to produce all these records as the time given was too short a period for somebody to make available.
Immediately thereafter the Revenue Inspector also issued the petitioners a notice to appear before him on 22.01.2020 and to show all relevant records
in respect of suit property for demarcation of their land. The said notice by the Revenue Inspector was at the behest of the respondent No.6, Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption Bureau). Immediately thereafter on 22.01.2020 the respondent authorities sealed the Crusher Plant of the
petitioners without any opportunity of hearing, or after initiating any proceedings under any of the statutory provisions.
On the previous day, this court had directed the State counsel to seek instructions as to under what authority of law the Crusher Plant had been
sealed and to also ascertain as to why demarcation proceedings have been initiated at the behest of respondent No.6 who is totally unconnected with
the revenue matters in the State.
Today, when the matter was taken up, the State authority produced certain documents and submitted that the mining department had received oral
complaints in respect of the Crusher Plant being operated in total violation of the mining laws. Further, the persons present in the Crusher Plant did not
have proper transit permit for transportation of the crushed metals from the Crusher Plant. All these led to the mining department sealing the Crusher
Plant of the petitioner.
On a query being put to the State counsel as to what were the illegalities that were detected in the course of inspection by the mining officer, they
have not been able to produce any document to that effect. They however expressed their apprehension in respect of the illegal transportation of the
mining product. Similar is the issue of demarcation where Annexure P/1 notice dated 20.01.2020 issued by the Revenue Inspector clearly reflects that
it has been initiated at the behest of one Dr. Prashant Shukla, DSP (Anti Corporation Bureau). No plausible explanation could be provided by the State
counsel on the aspect as to why demarcation proceedings have been ordered to be initiated at the behest of respondent No.6. The State authority also
have not been able to produce the nature of complaint or the complaint itself in respect of the petitioners and their mining operation.
Indisputably the petitioners are engaged in the business of operation of Crusher Plant which is a part of mining activity and it is the mining officer of
the concerned area who has all the right to inspect any such mining activities. However, if on inspection any irregularities or illegalities is detected by
the mining officer, the only recourse available to the mining officer is to initiate a proceeding under the concerned mining law and only thereafter could
have passed an order of sealing of the establishment. Under no circumstances can there be a procedure of first closing of the Crusher Plant and then
calling upon the petitioners to establish their innocence or to detect any illegalities, if any. There has been no such proceeding initiated by the mining
officer before sealing of the Crusher Plant of the petitioners.
The said action on the part of the respondents in sealing Crusher Plant of the petitioners without any procedure drawn under the mining law, nor
giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing is per se illegal and the said action stands deprecated by this court. So far as notice of demarcation
issued by the revenue inspector is concerned, the same also seems to be politically motivated or else the DSP (Anti Corruption Bureau) would not
have insisted for demarcation proceeding to be drawn. The counsel for the petitioners himself has fairly conceded that the petitioners do not have any
objection if their land over which the Crusher Plant situates is demarcated following the procedure and guidelines framed for the same. Once when
the petitioners themselves have shown their readiness for their property being demarcated, the respondent authorities may proceed in accordance with
law for demarcation of the suit property. Based on the report of the Revenue authorities, let further necessary action be drawn, if required.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the respondent authorities shall forthwith remove the seal from the
petitioner's Crusher Plant and the petitioners would be permitted to resume their mining activities in accordance with law. This would not preclude the
authorities under the mining laws from carrying out any usual inspection, if they want, by following the procedure prescribed under the concerned act
and rules.
It is further ordered that both, the inspection under the mining law as also the demarcation proceeding should be done without being, in any manner,
influence by any external agencies or persons, nor should the attitude and approach of the respondent authorities reflect vindictiveness or arbitrary. It
is also expected that the authorities of the State would grant fair and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.