Shri.Gurudas Bairagi And ANR v. The Deputy Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE [ CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] ** PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA WPA 264 of 2025 SHRI GURUDAS BAIRAGI AND ANOTHER ...
PETITIONER VS.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ANDAMAN DISTRICT ...
RESPONDENT For the petitioner : Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Ilango For the respondent : Ms. Babita Das Heard on : June 17, 2025 Judgment on : June 17, 2025 JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1.
This is an application challenging an order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RC Case No.
762/DC(SA)/2025/2689 whereby a penalty was imposed upon the petitioners for unauthorized possession of certain minor minerals. 2.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the land-inquestion. It has been alleged that the petitioner No. 1 was extracting and
dumping mines and minerals in respect of such property. It is denied that an inspection was at all done. However, as per the order an inspection was allegedly done at the said premises and it was found that the extracted quantity of the white "morum" was approximately estimated to be around 750 Cbm. The market value was estimated to be Rs. 24,00,000/- and the said sum was imposed as penalty purportedly in terms of Section 201 (6) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 and Rule 34 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Mine and Minerals Rules, 2012. First, no notice was given to the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was given to them to explain the charges/allegations. It is trite law that before a penalty is imposed, the petitioners should be allowed an opportunity of hearing.
In fact, it is doubtful that the very allegations made by the authorities amount to any wrong doing inasmuch as it has been alleged that the petitioners extracted the minerals from their own property and dumped it there only. Incidentally, Rule 34 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Mine and Minerals Rules, 2012 provide for an opportunity of hearing.
3.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State denies the allegations and submits as follows. The respondent authorities acted as per law and upon inspection, estimated the value of the extracted mineral and accordingly, imposed a penalty. However, the records do not
show that any notice was given to the petitioners in this regard. The inspection memo also does not contain any signature of the petitioners. 4.
It appears that a penalty to the tune of Rs. 24,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioners for violation of certain provisions of law without giving them an opportunity of hearing. 5.
It does not appear that any notice was given to the petitioners in this regard. Admittedly, the inspection memo does not contain the signature of the petitioners.
6.
Therefore, it is apparent that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, even a limited one, before imposition of penalty. 7.
In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authority to decide the same afresh and in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners.
8.
It is clarified that merits of the case have not been gone into by this Court.
9.
As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.
10.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
11.
Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( JAY SENGUPTA, J. )