Devkabai Velji vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—The petitioner, a partnership firm was leased out certain land for mining Manganese Ore and Iron Ore. After the land was leased out, the petitioner was mining Manganese Ore and Iron Ore. Suddenly, an order was passed to the effect that the petitioner did extract Manganese in excess to the extent of 7225.249 MT which was illegal in terms of Section 21(5) of the MMRD Act. Likewise, it was also found that the petitioner has mined Iron Ore in excess to the extent of 532176.948 MT which is also illegal as it was in contravention of the said provision as stated above and thereby an order was passed as contained in letter no. 417/M dated 8.3.2013 that the petitioner is liable to make payment of a sum of Rs. 7212089.174 and also a sum of Rs. 217460199.018 for mining Manganese Ore and Iron Ore illegally respectively. That order was challenged.

While the matter was pending, two demand notices as contained in Annexure 3 and Annexure 3/1 to the Interlocutory application bearing no. 3079 of 2014 were issued by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not ordered to make payment of the aforesaid amount with interest on account of extracting Manganese Ore and also Iron Ore in excess as has been stated above.

Mr. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order as contained in Annexure 2 where the petitioner has been asked to deposit the amount on account of illegal mining of Manganese Ore and Iron Ore is bad simply on account of the fact that the said order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of hearing.

Further it was submitted that in fact, such kind of order was passed in case of number of lessees. Some of them had filed Revision application before the Central Government where the orders passed against them were found to be illegal as the order has been passed without hearing them and therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back so that the authority may pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the lessee.

When the order was passed like that, the authority did realize mistake and thereby notices have been issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his show cause. But while issuing notice to the petitioner, the order as contained in Annexure 2 was never recalled/annulled and therefore, under that circumstances, the petitioner is pressing this application for quashing of the order dated 8.3.2013 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application.

Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is quite open for the petitioner to make response to the notices issued and this Court needs not to interfere with the order dated 8.3.2013, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application.

Admittedly, an order as contained in Annexure 2 has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of its hearing. Without hearing the petitioner, an order has been passed whereby it has been held that the petitioner has mined huge quantities of Manganese Ore and Iron Ore illegally. Consequently, the petitioner was asked to make payment of the amount as aforesaid.

Since the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, the same is hereby set aside.

However, since the notices have already been issued to the petitioner whereby he has been called upon to submit his show cause relating to illegal extraction of Manganese Ore and Iron Ore, the petitioner must response to the notices within the time as stipulated in the notice.

Thus, this application stands disposed of in the terms indicated above.