Jharkhand High Court: The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order, issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, whereby a notice was issued against the petitioner under Section 56 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (‘JMMC Rules’) with instruction to deposit the fine along with statutory taxes.
The Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai JJ., stated that in the present case, the Assistant Mining Officer, who held the post of District Mining Officer in charge at that time, straight away saddled the petitioner with a liability by raising the demand of Rs 2,31,862 along with the statutory taxes, without considering the petitioner’s furnished explanation. The District Mining Officer, failed to discharge his administrative functions properly. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the demand notice; and remitted the matter to the present District Mining Officer to take a final decision within three weeks.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner was a developer and was carrying out the construction of the multistoried building in view of the sanctioned map by Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation. He had purchased the building construction materials, i.e. sand and chips. Suddenly, a notice was issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer in exercise of power conferred under Section 56 of the JMMC Rules by raising the demand of Rs 2,31,862 along with statutory taxes amounting to Rs 37,778.
The petitioner contended that he had purchased the sand and chips from the bona fide seller and that he was not a leaseholder. He further contended that immediately, after receipt of the notice, he gave the vouchers to substantiate the element of purchase of sand/chips, but without taking a final decision by considering the vouchers, straight away the demand was issued. Thus, the petitioner approached the present Court.
The present District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, at the previous hearing, stated that the day when the demand was raised, he was not holding the post of the District Mining Officer; rather, he joined subsequently. He further informed the Court that the predecessor-in-office who had passed the order was now posted as Assistant Mining Officer.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that it was not disputed that if the administrative authority called upon any party to explain the accusation of commission of any irregularity and the explanation was furnished, then the administrative authority is bounded by duty to take decision on consideration of such explanation. The Court opined that it was also required for the purpose of the cardinal principle of natural justice, to have the compliance of the whole decision of the authority concerned. However, in the present case, the Assistant Mining Officer straight away saddled the petitioner with a liability by raising the demand of Rs 2,31,862 along with the statutory taxes amounting to Rs 37,778 without considering the furnished explanation.
The Court held that the Assistant Mining Officer, who held the post of District Mining Officer in charge at that time, had failed to discharge his administrative function properly. Thus, the Court allowed the petition by quashing and setting aside the demand of Rs 2,31,862 along with statutory taxes.
Further, the Court remitted the matter to the present District Mining Officer, who will consider the already furnished explanation along with the relevant documents showing the purchase of the material and then, take a final decision. Considering that the Assistant Mining Officer showed deep regret and it was his first chance, the Court did not initiate departmental proceedings against him. However, the Court cautioned him to be careful while deciding future cases.
[Rajesh Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(C) No.2949 of 2020, decided on 2-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sachin Kumar, AAG-II and Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II
Buy Constitution of India HERE
