2022 (9) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian Laws

Restoration of mining operation and business of the petitioner by issuing e-ravanna - refrain from creating any hindrance or obstruction in the mining operation - no prior notice before inspection was given - HELD THAT - Submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that entire exercise undertaken by the respondents is bad in law inasmuch as no prior notice before inspection was given to it, does not merit acceptance as this Court is not satisfied that before carrying out inspection of the petitioner's mine, any prior notice was required. In absence of any statutory provision under the Rules of 2017 mandating so, the respondents were at liberty to carry out surprise inspection. This Court is also not satisfied that no demand could have been based on the inspections carried out in absence of authorised representative of the petitioner firm inasmuch as the inspection on both the occasions was carried out in presence of Shri Anil Parashar, who, undoubtedly, was a representative of the petitioner as is revealed from the supplementary agreement dated 24.1.2019 executed between the parties wherein, Shri Parashar has stood as a witness on behalf of the petitioner-firm as also from the fact that the documents obtained by Shri Anil Parashar under the RTI Act, 2005, have been relied upon by the petitioner firm to substantiate the averments made in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that inspections were carried out in presence of representative of the petitioner firm. This Court is not satisfied with the contention of learned State Counsel that since the demand raised vide order dated 11.8.2020 was maintained vide order dated 30.12.2021, they were required neither to supply a copy of the inspection report dated 9.4.2021 to the petitioner firm nor, to issue any show cause notice or afford it an opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 30.12.2021. This specious argument is rather reflective of pre-determination of the respondents in maintaining the penalty imposed vide order dated 11.8.2020 - in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents were under an obligation not only to supply the petitioner a copy of the inspection report dated 9.4.2021; but, also to afford it an opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 30.12.2021. The order dated 30.12.2021 as also the order dated 11.8.2020 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the inspection reports and demand orders.
2. Requirement of prior notice for inspection.
3. Presence and authorization of the petitioner's representative during inspections.
4. Legality of the inspection report preparation.
5. Validity of inspection by a two-member committee instead of a three-member committee.
6. Principles of natural justice regarding the supply of inspection reports and opportunity of hearing.
7. Maintainability of the writ petition due to alleged improper reconstitution of the petitioner firm.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Inspection Reports and Demand Orders:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the inspection reports dated 20.2.2020 and 9.4.2021, and subsequent demand orders dated 11.8.2020 and 30.12.2021. The court noted that the demand of Rs. 4,51,75,677 was based on findings of illegal excavation and transportation of minerals. The court, however, found that the respondents failed to provide the petitioner with a copy of the inspection report dated 9.4.2021 and did not afford an opportunity of hearing before maintaining the demand in the order dated 30.12.2021, violating principles of natural justice.

2. Requirement of Prior Notice for Inspection:
The petitioner argued that the inspections were invalid due to lack of prior notice. The court dismissed this argument, stating that no statutory provision under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 mandates prior notice for inspections, allowing respondents to conduct surprise inspections.

3. Presence and Authorization of Petitioner's Representative During Inspections:
The petitioner contended that the inspections were invalid as they were conducted in the absence of an authorized representative. The court found that inspections were carried out in the presence of Shri Anil Parashar, who, through documentary evidence, was established as a representative of the petitioner firm.

4. Legality of the Inspection Report Preparation:
The petitioner claimed that the inspection report dated 20.2.2020 was invalid as it was prepared in the respondents' office and not at the site. The court rejected this, noting that the report was based on site inspections conducted from 4.12.2019 to 20.12.2019.

5. Validity of Inspection by a Two-Member Committee:
The petitioner argued that the inspection by a two-member committee on 9.4.2021 was invalid as the state government had ordered a three-member committee. The court found no statutory requirement for a three-member committee under the Rules of 2017 and noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the inspection conducted by the remaining two members.

6. Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the respondents were obligated to supply the petitioner with a copy of the inspection report dated 9.4.2021 and provide an opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 30.12.2021. The failure to do so was seen as a pre-determined decision to maintain the earlier demand, violating principles of natural justice.

7. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
An intervenor claimed that the writ petition was not maintainable due to improper reconstitution of the petitioner firm. The court dismissed this contention, noting that the official respondents had not found any illegality or irregularity in the firm's reconstitution. Additionally, the intervenor had already challenged the reconstitution in a separate pending writ petition.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders dated 30.12.2021 and 11.8.2020, and directed the respondents to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.