Authorities Cannot Skip Fresh Inquiry or Rely on a Report Never Given to the Miner, Rules Rajasthan High Court
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a ₹1,73,88,000 demand raised against Chetan Singh Jhala for alleged illegal mining, holding that the authorities could not impose the penalty without following the fresh inquiry they had themselves ordered and without giving him the report relied upon against him.
Justice Nupur Bhati allowed Chetan Singh’s writ petition and set aside the demand order dated June 8, 2017, finding a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The case arose from Chetan Singh’s mining lease for Rhyolite Masonry Stone in Kharda Modi Bhakhri, Pali. In 2015, the authorities alleged that he had carried out illegal mining 30 metres beyond his lease boundary. He denied the allegation and sought a fresh investigation. The authorities then rejected the earlier investigation report and specifically ordered a fresh inquiry by the Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur, in the presence of the concerned leaseholders.
However, instead of relying on a fresh inquiry, the authorities later relied on a Commissioner’s report prepared in separate proceedings. Chetan Singh was not a party to those proceedings and repeatedly asked for a copy of the report, but it was never supplied to him.
Despite this, the department raised a ₹1.73 crore demand against him and warned of action against his mining lease if the amount was not paid.
The High Court held that the authorities had failed to show that the fresh investigation ordered by them was actually conducted. It also found that simply calling Chetan Singh’s reply “not satisfactory” was not enough to establish liability for such a large demand.
The Court stressed that a person must be given the material being used against him so that he gets a real opportunity to defend himself. Since the Commissioner’s report was never supplied to Chetan Singh, the Court found a clear breach of natural justice.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the ₹1,73,88,000 demand. However, the Court clarified that it was not deciding whether illegal mining had actually taken place.