9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... har, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021, submitted its report on 9.4.2021 wherein, it broadly agreed with the earlier enquiry report dated 20.2.2020 whereupon, vide order impugned dated 30.12.2021, the demand raised vide order dated 11.8.2020 was maintained. Legality and validity of the inspection reports and the demand order has been assailed in the writ petition. 4. As per the reply filed by the respondents, inspection on both the occasions was carried out in presence of Shri Anil Parashar, a representative of the petitioner firm. It is stated that earlier also a committee was constituted on 5.11.2018 which, during its inspection on 13.12.2018, found certain irregularities entailing imposition of a penalty of Rs. 48,15,642 which the petitioner deposited through challan dated 21.1.2019. In the inspection of the petitioner's mine carried out from 4.12.2019 to 20.12.2019, illegal excavation and transportation of 82379.84 tonne of masonry stone and 18136.37 tonne of silica sand was found which culminated into imposition of a penalty of Rs. 4,51,75,677 vide order dated 11.8.2020. It is stated that on account of retirement of one Member of the Committee on attaining age of superannuation, the remaining two members of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the enquiry report dated 9.4.2021 and the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice too inasmuch as neither a show cause notice nor, an opportunity of hearing was given before raising demand. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed in terms of prayers made therein. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgments in support of his submissions: 1) Grands Mining (a Partnership Firm), Bokaro Steel City vs. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology- (2022) 1 JLJR 63; 2) Mewar Marbles Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan-2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 213. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel, Shri Zakir Hussain would submit that no prior notice was required to be given before carrying out inspection of the mine. He submits that inspection on both the occasions, i.e., on 4.12.2019 and 9.4.2021 was carried out in presence of Shri Anil Parashar, the authorised representative of the petitioner firm. He, in this regard, invited attention of this Court towards the supplementary agreement dated 24.1.2019 executed in between the parties wherein, Shri Anil Parashar stood as a witness on behalf of the petitioner firm. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficial respondents did not find any illegality or irregularity re-constitution of the petitioner firm, the objection raised by the intervenor is not sustainable. 12. Heard. Considered. 13. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner firm was issued a show cause notice dated 22.6.2020 alleging illegal excavation and transportation of the mineral based on the enquiry committee report dated 20.2.2020. The notice was replied by the petitioner but, it did not find favour with the respondents and vide order dated 11.8.2020, a demand of Rs. 4,51,75,677 was raised against it. Thereafter, on a representation by the petitioner, the State Government, vide its order dated 19.8.2020, ordered for a fresh inspection by a three-Member Committee which was carried out on 9.4.2021 by a two Member Committee and based thereupon, the demand raised vide order dated 11.8.2020, has been reiterated vide order dated 30.12.2021. 14. 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 inspectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 and even otherwise also, the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that the inspection carried out by the remaining two Members of the Committee after retirement of one of its Members, caused any prejudice to it. 18. However, 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. This Court fails to comprehend as to how before objective examination of the inspection report dated 9.4.2021 prepared in pursuance of direction of the State Government dated 19.8.2020 on a representation submitted by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the earlier inspection report dated 20.2.2020, the respondents could have arrived at conclusion that the demand raised vide order dated 11.8.2020 was to be maintained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
