TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess. It is well settled that where exercise of power results in civil consequences, unless the statute specifically rules out, the principle of natural justice would apply. Since the order dated 25.11.2010 was challenged on merits and records of the case were placed before the Revisional Authority, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Revisional Authority to decide the same on merits, and thereafter quash the proceeding after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties - Petition dismissed. - WP(C)--10219/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2016 - MR. VINEET SARAN AND DR. B.R. SARANGI, JJ For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Parties : M/s. A.K. Bose, Asst. Solicitor General and D.K. Sahoo, Central Govt. Counsel [For O.P. No.1] Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ashok K. Parija, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Sarada P. Sarangi, P.K. Das, P.P. Mohanty, [For O.P. No. 2] Vineet Saran, J. By means of this writ petition filed by the petitioner- State of Odisha, challenge is made to the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 30 of the Mines And Minerals (Development Regulation) Act 1957 (for short, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Authority proceeded to take up the revision on merits, and held the order dated 25.11.2010 to be bad in law, and set aside the impugned proceeding dated 25.11.2010 of the State Government. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 5. We have heard Shri B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State of Odisha, as well as Shri D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Govt. Counsel for opp. party no.1-Union of India and Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Ashok Kumar Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Shri S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for the contesting opp. party no.2, and have perused the record. 6. Section 21(5) of the Mines Minerals (Development Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which are relevant for the purpose of the case, are extracted hereunder: Sec.21(5). Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the party concerned of a particular fact. It seems that the Court cannot limit the words notice in writing to only a letter. Notice may take several forms. It must, to be sufficient in writing and must intimate quite clearly that the award has been made and signed. 10. Similarly in Venkateswaraloo v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Hyderabad State, AIR 1953 SC 49, the apex Court held that the word order in under section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 means an order laying down directions about the manner in which things are to be done under the Act and the section does not mean that a substantive order against a particular person can be made under a provision of an Act before that Act has come into force. 11. Applying the meaning attached to the words, notice and order, in our view, from the contents and language of the said communication, the same can be termed as nothing else but an order, as definite directions were given by the State Government without specifying that opp. party no.2 is required to show cause as to why such payment be not made by opp. party no.2, or why she may not be required to make good or remedy any of the conditions of the mining lease. To th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of any mineral raised without any lawful authority can also not be called a penal action. The underlying principle of sub-section(5) is that a person acting without any lawful authority must not find himself placed in a position more advantageous than a person raising minerals with lawful authority. Therefore, the marginal note penalties cannot be pressed into service for giving such colour to the meaning of sub- section (5) as it cannot have in law. The recovery of price of the mineral is intended to compensate the State for the loss of the mineral owned by it and caused by a person who has been held to be not entitled in law to raise the same. There is no element of penalty involved and the recovery of price is not a penal action. It is just compensatory. The reliance placed on Karnataka Rare Earth (supra) is factually distinguishably to the present context and as such is not applicable in view of the fact that without complying the principles of natural justice the determination has been made by the communication dated 25.11.2010, by which the petitioner has been called upon to deposit the amount without quantifying the same in proper prospective. Whether it is in the natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withstanding the vesting of a power, in subjective terms, in a minister responsible to Parliament. 17. It is well settled that where exercise of power results in civil consequences, unless the statute specifically rules out, the principle of natural justice would apply. This position of law no more remains as res integra in view of the catena of decisions laid down by the apex Court starting from the State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and till date. 18. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150, the apex Court held as follows: The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 the apex court held as follows: It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of that individual the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,00,000 MT. The Revisional Authority has considered this aspect and accepted the explanation of opp. party no.2 with regard to shortage of 7,479 MT, which was on account of ground loss, handling loss, compaction factors of the iron ore stack, irregular geometrical shape of the iron ore stack and uneven ground level on which iron had been stacked. Considering this aspect, the Revisional Authority held that the shortage was miniscule as compared to the overall scenario which, in our calculation, comes to 0.28%. Such finding recorded by the Revisional Authority is perfectly justified and does not call for interference. 21. It was lastly contended by the Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner, that though the prayer in the revision petition was for quashing of the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the State of Odisha, restraining the State or its officers from acting upon or giving effect in any way to the impugned order, the Revisional Authority has, in fact, set aside the impugned proceeding dated 25.11.2010 itself, which was beyond the prayers made in the revision petition. For proper appraisal of the same, we may reproduce the prayers made in the revision petition, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
