Md. Kalim Ansari @ Kalim Ansari. … v. The State of Jharkhand. 1. 2. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad
Case Details
05/9.4.2024 2. Heard the parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2617 of 2022 ---- Md. Kalim Ansari @ Kalim Ansari. …..Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. 1. 2. District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. 3. Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. …..Respondents
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5639 of 2019. He has also submitted that the counter affidavit is silent with respect to the contention raised by the petitioner and infact it directly accepts the said proposition of violation of the -2- Principles of Natural Justice. 5. Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, learned A.C. to G.P.1, has relied on the counter affidavit and has submitted that the brick kilns were being run by the petitioner without a valid permit from the respondent no. 2 and therefore a demand notice was issued imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 6. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing of bricks and on 17.7.2018 since the petitioner was not in a position to manufacture such bricks regarding Brick Year 2015- 16 he had accordingly informed the respondent no. 2. However, in spite of the said information, the petitioner had received a demand notice as contained in letter no. 506 dated 6.3.2021 wherein the respondent no. 2 had made a demand of Rs.8,25,890/-in the following manner:- Brick Year 2017-18 Royalty & Penalty Interest up to 31.3.2021 DMFT with interest Interest Income Tax Interest Rs.1,62,000/= Rs.93,960/- Rs.24,300/- Rs.11,745/- Rs.5,119/- Rs.2,227/- Rs.2,99,351/- Total Brick Year 2018-19 Royalty & Penalty Interest up to 31.3.2021 DMFT Interest Income Tax Interest Total Rs.1,62,000/= Rs.90,720/- Rs.24,300/- Rs.11,340/- Rs.5,055/- Rs.2,123/- Rs.2,95,538/- 7. A revised demand notice was sent to the petitioner enhancing the amount vide letter no. 588 dated 13.3.2021 in which the details were given as follows:- Brick Year 2017-18 Royalty & Penalty Interest up to 31.3.2021 DMFT Rs.1,62,000/= Rs.93,960/- Rs.24,300/- -3- Interest Income Tax Interest Total Brick Year 2018-19 Royalty & Penalty Interest up to 31.3.2021 DMFT Interest Income Tax Interest Rs.11,745/- Rs.5,119/- Rs.2,227/- Rs.2,99,351/- Rs.1,62,000/= Rs.90,720/- Rs.24,300/- Rs.11,340/- Rs.5,055/- Rs.2,123/- Rs.2,95,538/- Total Brick Year 2019-20 Royalty & Penalty Interest up to 31.3.2021 DMFT Interest Income Tax Interest Total Grand Total : Rs.1,95,000/= Rs.42,100/- Rs.29,250/- Rs.5,363/- Rs.4,758/- Rs.785/- Rs.2,77,256/- Rs.8,72,945/- 8. The respondent no. 2 had also instituted a certificate case being Certificate Case No. 15/2020-21 and though an objection was filed by the petitioner but ultimately the petitioner was issued a notice directing him to pay Rs.7,46,580/- being the certificate amount. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the demand notice and the imposition of penalty by the respondent no. 2 upon the petitioner was done without issuing any notice to the petitioner or giving him an opportunity of hearing. The counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 seems to support the said fact as nothing to the contrary has been stated therein. 10. Anr. In W.P.(C) No.5639 of 2019, it has been held as follows:- In the case of Prahlad Das Mohta Vs. The State of Jharkhand & “12. In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is clear that ` -4- a prior show-cause notice granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative decision-making process. If the statute conferring the certain power to an authority is silent with regard to granting a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, the administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are bound to observe the requirement of the principles of natural justice unless the compliance of the same is expressly excluded by any specific law. 21. In the case in hand, the petitioners have claimed violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondent no.2 while issuing the impugned letters levying penalty upon them. The facts of the cases suggest that the respondent no.2 (DMOs of different districts) have 12 not afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, rather have issued demand of penalty on the basis of the audit objection raised by the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi”. 11. The scenario, noted above, therefore, reveals that there is an apparent violation of the Principles of Natural Justice in raising a demand as well as the revised demand by the respondent no. 2 and consequently the impugned demand notice dated 6.3.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 as contained in letter no. 506/M, revised demand as contained in letter no. 588 dated 13.3.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Certificate Case No. 15/2021 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,46,580/-being the certificate amount is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded
Arguments
Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the Respondents-State : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate : Ms. Ayushi, Advocate : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, A.C. to G.P. 1 ------- -------- ------- In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the demand notice as contained in letter No. 506/M, Dhanbad dated 6.3.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 by which a demand in respect of which has been raised totalling an amount of Rs.8,25,890/-. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the revised demand as contained in letter no. 588 dated 13.3.2021 by which the respondent no. 2 after revisiting the demand has raised a fresh demand to the tune of Rs.8,72,945/-. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the certificate notice issued under section 7 of the Jharkhand Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 issued by the Certificate Officer (Mines) by which the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,46,580/- being the certificate amount in connection with Certificate Case No. 15/2020-21. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the impugned demand made by the respondent no. 2 is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as neither any show cause notice was issued nor the petitioner was heard prior to issuance of the impugned demand. 4. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to an order
Decision
back to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. This writ application stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-