Shri.R.Chidambaram v. The Deputy Commissioner And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/63/2025 Shri R. Chidambaram Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner and Others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar .... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents March 18, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 1.

The Tehsildar has filed an affidavit justifying the action taken by him. The petitioner has challenged two orders; first one is undated and the second one is dated 8th January, 2025 alleging that the respondent authorities have imposed penalty of Rs.4.90 lakhs for illegal extraction, transportation and dumping of stone boulders from the land under possession and occupation of the writ petitioner.

2.

By a subsequent order dated 8th January, 2025, the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram directed the Revenue Inspector of Circle No.(5) and Patwari Circle No.(13) to close down the operation of the stone crusher unit of the petitioner with immediate effect on the premises the said amount was not paid. 3.

The Coordinate Bench, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, was of the view that the two orders were passed without giving any opportunity of hearing by the Tehsildar, Sri Vijaya Puram and accordingly passed an interim order allowing the writ petitioner to run the stone crusher unit as by that time, the penalty amount was paid with a rider that the said order shall not preclude the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings

against the writ petitioner based on new materials or allegations which are not part of the aforesaid two impugned orders. 4.

It the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, they referred to various provisions of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and also Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in support of imposing the fine. 5.

It is alleged that in the affidavit that the order dated 24th June, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman was duly served upon the writ petitioner which is admitted by the writ petitioner in his reply furnished vide DCSA CD No.463/2025 dated 10.01.2025 in which the writ petitioner has pleaded innocence and lack of knowledge. However the fact remains that the entire process was initiated and continued without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I am unable to find any document or decision which would show any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before initiating such proceedings.

6.

The undated and order dated 8th January, 2025 were passed on the premise that the petitioner has illegally extracted and transported the stone boulders from his agricultural holding in furtherance of commercial gain and thereby it is in contravention of the provisions laid down under the regulation and rules framed thereunder.

7.

Although it is mentioned in the affidavit that on 30.04.2024, the petitioner was directed to refrain from shifting of stone boulder and stone breaker but in spite of that the driver of the stone breaker escaped from the spot with key of the stone breaker in the presence of the writ petitioner,

however, this appears to be the statement of the Tehsildar without any corroboration.

8.

This Court is of the view that at least post decisional hearing should have been given to the writ petitioner before imposing fine in implementation of the said order. 9.

Under such circumstances, this Court directs the petitioner to make a representation against the two orders mentioned in paragraph 2 of the order dated 10.02.2025 within a period of fortnight from date and in the event, of such a representation being made, the Tehsildar is directed to dispose of the said representation within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such representation by a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10.

Till such time, the respondent authority shall permit the petitioner to operate the stone crusher unit subject to compliance of all statutory rules and regulations. 11.

The impugned orders which form the subject of the writ petition are set aside on the ground that the said orders were passed and implemented in violation of the principles of natural justice. I have not gone into the merits of the impugned order. However, the penalty amount, the Tehsildar shall continue to hold till the disposal of the representation. 12.

In the event the Tehsildar found that the writ petitioner is innocent, the penalty amount should be refunded. 13.

Since affidavit-in-reply is not filed, the allegations contained in the affidavit-in-opposition are deemed to be have been denied by the writ petitioner.

( Soumen Sen, J. )