Blacklisting | Principles Of Natural Justice Should Compulsorily Be Followed To Maintain Rule Of Law: Allahabad High Court
Setting aside an order of blacklisting and cancellation of mining lease passed against the petitioner, the Allahabad High Court recently held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in order to maintain rule of law.Considering that the petitioner had not been heard before passing of the impugned order, the court passed directions for it to be allowed...
Setting aside an order of blacklisting and cancellation of mining lease passed against the petitioner, the Allahabad High Court recently held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in order to maintain rule of law.
Considering that the petitioner had not been heard before passing of the impugned order, the court passed directions for it to be allowed to function on the leased land.
The Bench, comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Shekhar B. Saraf, observed that,
“It may seem to a few that the observance of the principles of natural justice is a cumbersome process but we do find that in a civilized society if the rule of law has to be there then the principles of natural justice should compulsorily be followed.”
Notably, the petitioner was granted a lease for 10 years for mining and crushing stone. While operating the lease, it had been served a notice alleging that illegal mining had been carried out by it outside the leased area in violation of Rules 3 and 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. A demand of Rs.1,70,06,000/- was raised against the petitioner in this notice.
Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed the writ petition, wherein the court initially directed that the petitioner file a reply to the notice. Subsequently however, by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner was blacklisted for 2 years and its lease cancelled.
Petitioner's counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Board of High School and intermediate Education, U.P. and others vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava and others to argue that as the petitioner's side was not heard, there was non-compliance of principles of natural justice, which was itself enough to set aside the impugned order.
The court called upon the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to file a personal affidavit explaining as to why the order of cancellation and blacklisting was passed in haste.
The District Magistrate, through his affidavit, stated that the order of the High Court was not placed before him. Further, it was asserted that the petitioner was a chronic trespasser, and accordingly, the cancellation and blacklisting order was justified.
Taking into consideration the judgment in Kumari Chitra Srivastava, the court held that violation of principles of natural justice was sufficient cause to set aside order of cancellation of lease and blacklisting.
It was noted that the order of the court directing the petitioner to file reply was passed in the presence of the Standing Counsel. Thus, the District Magistrate had flouted the order of the court.
"This order was passed in the presence of the learned Standing Counsel yet the District Magistrate had absolutely, not only flouted the order of this Court but had also, not cared to wait to get a reply of the petitioner".
Based on the above observations, the court directed that the petitioner be allowed to function on his land with immediate effect. Directions were also issued to the petitioner to file a fresh reply within one week, which shall be adjudicated upon by the District Magistrate after grant of personal hearing to it.
Case Title: Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company vs. State of U.P. and Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 458, WRIT-C No. 25003/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 458