Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3742 of 2025 Jai Bajrang Audyogik Khadan Kamagar Cooperative Society Reg No. 2604 Through Its President Bhagavani Ram Nishad, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Shyamlal Nishad, R/o 266, Bhatapara, Village Nisda, Thesil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Geology And Mining Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
Legal Reasoning
2 - The Director Mining, Directorate Of Geology And Mining, Indravati Bhawan, Block-4, First And Second Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Dy. Director Mining Raipur, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Mining Officer Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - The Mining Inspector Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/07/2025 Heard. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the following relief(s) : “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned show cause notice dated 18.01.2025 by virtue of which a direction has been issued by the authorities to suspend the mining activity without following the principle of natural justice, in the interest of justice. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned second notice dated 06.02.2025 which has been issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice 3 dated 18.01.2025 which is issued in form of impugned order directing the petitioner to stop the mining operations till further orders. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner society is the lessee who has been allotted the mining lease of the Flagstone at Village Nisda Thesil Arang, District Raipur at Khasra No 1344 as well as 1345 an area admeasuring 1.40 Acres from 01.12.2010 to 01.12.2030. It is respectfully submitted that, on 18.01.2025 the petitioner was issued an impugned notice from the Mining Inspector District Raipur, alleging that the petitioner has failed to maintain the mining pillars required to demarcate the mining areas and has failed to adopt the safety measures for carrying out the mining activities, as well as leveled other allegations also without seeking any response on the proposed allegation, a note has been appended in the impugned show cause notice itself asking the petitioner to suspend the mining activities till further orders, which itself amounts to violation of principle of natural justice, as along with the notice itself, the suspension order of mining activities has been passed without hearing the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner was served with another show cause notice dated 06.02.2025 by the Collector (Mining Division) Raipur on the basis of the inspection made by the mining inspector dated 11.01.2025, altogether on new grounds which were not present in the impugned show cause notice dated 18.01.2025 except with regard to the violation of Rule 51(11) of Chhattisgarh Minor Minerals Rules, 2015 which was replied by the petitioner by filing the 4 detailed reply was filed dated 11.03.2025, requesting the authorities to permit the petitioner to carry out the mining operation, as there is no such violation, but no heed was paid till date, and no such order is passed permitting the petitioner to carry out the mining operation. Hence this petition challenging the legality and validity of the impugned show cause notice dated 18.01.2025 Hence this petition challenging the legality and validity of the impugned show cause notice dated 18.01.2025 which is in form of impugned order as well as subsequent show cause notice dated 06.02.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the record, I have found that the petitioner is the lessee who has been allotted the mining lease of the Flagstone at Village Nisda Tahsil Arang, District Raipur at Khasra No 1344 as well as 1345 an area admeasuring 1.40 Acres from 01.12.2010 to 01.12.2030. On 18.01.2025, the petitioner was issued an impugned notice Annexure P-2 alleging that the petitioner has failed to maintain the mining pillars required to demarcate the mining areas and has failed to adopt the safety measures for carrying out the mining activities, and has failed to maintain the 5 records on spot. However in Ex.P-2, there is a date of inspection is blanked and there is no mentioned in which date Mining Inspector inspected the area concerned. It is also pertinent to mentioned here that without seeking any response of the proposed allegation, a note has been appended in the impugned show cause notice itself asking the petitioner to suspend the mining activities till further order, it is against the principle of natural justice. 6. It is also pertinent to mentioned here that the petitioner was served another show cause notice dated 06.02.2025 by the Collector (Mining Division), Raipur on the basis of inspection made by the Mining Inspector dated 11.01.2025 on that notice there is reference column/inspection date is blank and inquiry is still pending before the Collector (Mining). However, counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has encroached some other land on which extra mining is going on, but it will all the reports are matter of inquiry which is still pending before the Collector. Impugned show cause notice (Annexure P-2) is punitive order and the same has been issued without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and mining activities have also been suspended, which is not sustained in the eye of law, therefore, the same is quashed. However, the Collector (Mining) shall decide the inquiry within a period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6 7. Accordingly, the instant petition disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of this case. The Collector (Mining) shall decide the inquiry on its own merits and facts of the case as per rules, regulations and law. Sd/- Vasant (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge