IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17509 of 2024 ====================================================== M/s Jai Bhagwati Mines a partnership firm having its office at 3F Siddarth Market, Lal Kothi Compound, Near Civil Lines, Gaya, through its authorised signatory, Sanjeeva Shyam Singh, aged about 59 years (male), son of Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, Resident of HIG 57, Chanakya Puri Colony, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 5. The Mineral Development Officer, Gaya. 6. Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, Through its Managing Director, Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan, (New Secretariate), Bailey Road, Patna 800015. 7. The Managing Director, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan, (New Secretariate), Bailey Road, Patna 800015. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, A.C. to AAG-12 For the B.S.M.C.L. : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Mines Department: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P. Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate Mr. Utkarsh Pathak, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 12-03-2026 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice contained in memo no.2772 dated 20.09.2024 intimating Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 2/30 the petitioner regarding Revision Case No. 01/2024 started before Respondent Mines Commissioner against the order contained in memo no.1784 dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya consequent to order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 8436/2023. ii. This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that Revision Case No.01/2024 is fraught with arbitrariness, started in violation of the provisions of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 and is therefore bad in the eyes of law. iii. This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that no revision could lie against the order of the Respondent Mineral Development Officer, Gaya which was passed in pursuance of the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.8436/2023 that too after conducting a fresh enquiry. iv. This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that the respondents cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. v. This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that having accepted the payment of Rs.6,81,494/-as penalty levied by the Mineral Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 3/30 Development Officer, Gaya that too without any protest, it did not lie with the Respondents to prefer revision against the order contained in memo no. 1784 dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Respondent Mineral Development Officer, Gaya. vi. To award any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and the circumstances of the case.” 2. The respondent-Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited (for short “BSMCL”) published a notice inviting e-auction for selection of sub-contractors for operation of sand ghats in the district of Gaya. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and being the highest bidder he was allotted Khijarsarai sand ghat after quoting Rs.77,71,363/- in the bidding process. Thereafter, a Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner indicating the term of contract till 31.03.2022. The term of contract was extended from time to time and lastly, it was extended from 27.12.2022 till 31.03.2023. The respondent-Managing Director, BSMCL, vide letter dated 06.03.2023 directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty of Rs.19,35,47,820/- for excavating the sand, outside the mining area and selling the same using the user-id of the sand ghat and thereafter the respondents also suspended the generation of e- Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 4/30 transit challans. 3. The aforesaid letter dated 06.03.2023 is reproduced herein below:- 4. After receiving the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.03.2023 to the respondent-Managing Director, BSMCL, requesting to Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 5/30 reconsider the matter in view of the fact that no notice of any inspection was given to him and the inspection was conducted in his absence, but the Managing Director vide letter dated 28.03.2023 once again directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount. The petitioner was not granted further extension for Khijarsarai sand ghat on account of the fact that he has not deposited the penalty amount and subsequent thereto, the respondents conducted a fresh auction and settled the said sand ghat in favour of another person vide letter dated 10.05.2023. 5. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.8436 of 2023 titled as ‘M/s Jai Bhagwati Mines vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.’ before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 had quashed the order of penalty. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under::- “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by elaborating his submissions further submits that neither any plant, machinery and tool installed by the petitioner have been seized from the mining area where the petitioner had allegedly carried out mining activity beyond the area under environmental clearance nor any vehicle of the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 6/30 has been intercepted by the district administration on the ground of non- availability of transportation challan or stock of mineral illegally extracted from any mining site being transported by such vehicle. While concluding his submissions, he drew the attention of this Court on a judgment passed in the case of M/s Uma Associates vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 3400 of 2023) vide order dated 09.05.2023, wherein while adjudicating the similar issue, the Court has held as follows:- “8. On perusal of the said order, the Court does not find that either the inspection by the so called departmental team was carried out in presence of the petitioner, whether the copy of the inspection report was provided to the petitioner or that proper opportunity to show-cause was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the order of penalty. In view of these facts, in the opinion of the Court the order of penalty dated 24.2.2023 issued under the signature of the Mineral Development Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram, is not sustainable and is hereby quashed, with liberty to the respondents that if so advised, they will be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.” xxxxx Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 7/30 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the settled position of law, this Court also feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the order passed by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uma Associates (supra) and accordingly in consequence thereof, the impugned order of penalty as contained in letter no.400 dated 06.03.2023 by respondent no.7, the Managing Director, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, Patna, is hereby quashed and cancelled with a liberty to the respondents that if so advised, they will be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.” 6. In pursuance of the order of this Court, a fresh proceeding was initiated by the respondent-Mineral Development Officer, Gaya, who had directed the Mines Inspector to conduct a fresh inspection of the sand ghat. After inspection, the Mines Inspector submitted his report and based upon the said report, the penalty was revised to the tune of Rs.6,81,494/-. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the said revised penalty amount and the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya also informed this fact to the Managing Director, BSMCL vide his letter dated 25.05.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner received the impugned notice dated 20.09.2024 intimating him that a Revision Case No.01 of 2024 has been instituted and he Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 8/30 was directed to appear on 04.10.2024. 7. On 04.10.2024 the petitioner appeared before the Mines Commissioner and requested for providing a copy of the memo of revision, which was provided to him including the letter dated 13.09.2024, by which the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya had requested the Mines Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the revision. During the course of hearing, the Mines Commissioner vide order dated 12.11.2024 directed for conducting a fresh inspection by a team consisting of Assistant Director, Bhojpur, Mineral Development Officer, Patna and Mineral Development Officer, Gaya. After inspection, the inspecting team submitted its report vide letter dated 13.12.2024. Finally, vide order dated 24.02.2025 the Mines Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.19,35,22,820/- upon the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after receipt of the said notice dated 20.09.2024 the petitioner made enquiry from the District Mining Officer and he came to know that the Mines Commissioner had suo motu instituted the Revision under Rule 68 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. He has further Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 9/30 submitted that since the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya had passed the order in pursuance to the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8436 of 2024, by which respondents were granted liberty to proceed afresh, and in pursuance thereof, he had passed the order dated 21.09.2023, no revision should have been filed either by the Mineral Development Officer or suo motu by the respondent-Mines Commissioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the action of the respondent Mines Commissioner in filing the revision suo motu against the order of the Mineral Development Officer amounts to approbation and re-probation at the same time. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after having accepted the penalty of Rs.6,81,404/- imposed by the Mineral Development Officer, that too, without any protest, it did not lie with the respondents to start a revision proceeding against the order of penalty. 10. It is the categorical submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the incumbent Mineral Development Officer could not have been aggrieved by an order passed by his predecessor. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that mere change of officer will not permit the Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 10/30 subsequent officer to question the order of his predecessor. It is submitted that successor on a post cannot be aggrieved by any order passed by his predecessor. Further, it has been submitted that a perusal of memo no.2685 dated 13.09.2024 and memo no.2694 dated 13.09.2024, it is evident that application for revision was filed by Mineral Development Officer under Rule 68 of the 2019 Rules along with petition for condonation of delay. In order to overcome the issue of limitation and alternate remedy of appeal, the Mines Commissioner purportedly commenced suo motu proceeding under Rule 7(c) of the 2019 Rules. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Mines Commissioner could not have suo motu instituted a revision against the order of the Mineral Development Officer, since he can start a proceeding of revision on its own motion only against an order of a Collector and not against any order passed by any other sub-ordinate authority. Adverting to Rule 68 of 2019 Rules, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid Rule contemplates revision only against an order of a Collector. It does not contemplate revision against an order of any other mining officer. The intent of the Rule is evident from Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 11/30 the words "and where any person aggrieved by any order passed by the collector under these rules files an application" appearing in the Rule. Further, the Mines Commissioner could also not have initiated the revision against the order of the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya since the same has been filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal under Rule 67 (1). Even a perusal of the order passed by the Mines Commissioner dated 25.02.2025, it would reveal that it has been admitted that a revision proceeding under Rule 68 can be initiated only against an order of the Collector. However, the Mines Commissioner has opined that under Rule-7(c), he can initiate revision proceeding against any order passed by any authority, if the same is against the interest of revenue and environmental conditions. It has also been recorded that the instant proceeding was initiated upon coming to know about the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Mineral Development Officer, Gaya and therefore, it is submitted that it does not lie with the respondents to suggest and argue that the instant proceeding has been initiated under Rule-7(c). The entire argument of the respondents revolving around Rule-7(c) is nothing but a convoluted attempt to surpass the impediment created by Rule 68 which stipulates that revision shall lie only Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 12/30 against an order passed by the Collector. Moreover, insofar as Rule-7(c) of the 2019 Rules to commence the suo motu proceeding is concerned, it is submitted that the same only prescribes the powers of the Mines Commissioner to suo motu call for and examine the records of any proceeding conducted by any authority, officer or persons subordinate to him under the act and the rules. However, the manner and the procedure of exercising such power has been detailed under Rule 68 of the 2019 Rules. The intent of the legislature is not to confer two separate powers of revision i.e. one under Rule 7(c) and the other under Rule 68. Therefore, the suo motu powers provided under Rule 7(c) have to be exercised as per Rule 68 and both are not independent of each other so as to lead to two different proceedings. 12. It has next been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents in counter affidavit have admitted that the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya filed a petition before the Mines Commissioner. As illustrated above, the said petition was filed under Rule 68 along with a petition for condonation of delay. However, the Mines Commissioner for reasons, best known to him, proceeded under Rule-7(c) of 2019 Rules. In fact, the delay Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 13/30 seems to have been condoned without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Moreover, since it has been admitted in the order dated 25.02.2025 that a revision petition under Rule 68 is maintainable only against an order of the Collector, the only recourse available to the Mines Commissioner upon receipt of the said letter no.2685 dated 13.09.2024 was to dismiss the same and direct the concerned authority to avail the remedy of appeal under Rule 67. However, the Mines Commissioner went on to constitute a Committee to conduct fresh inspection and pass the order dated 25.02.2025 based upon the inspection report. 13. It is further submitted that without any specific finding of irregularity in the memo no.1784 dated 21.05.2024 issued by the then respondent Mineral Development Officer, Gaya, the respondent Mines Commissioner could not have saddled the petitioner with a penalty of Rs. 19,35,22,820/- only upon the consideration that the revised penalty, earlier levied upon the petitioner, was much less than the penalty proposed initially. 14. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the respondent Mineral Development Officer was passed on 21.05.2024 and to the best Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 14/30 knowledge of the petitioner, the instant revision has been initiated after lapse of more than three months. In this context, it is submitted that though no time limit has been prescribed under Rule 68 to start the revision proceeding on its own motion, however, when the statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time frame. The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down in the case of B.S. Sheshagiri Setty vs State of Karnataka reported in (2016) 2 SCC 123. In the present case, the revision has been instituted after lapse of more than three months without any justification. Further, as per Rule 68 (2), the respondents were duty bound to supply the reasons for starting the revision proceeding but, no such reasons have been supplied to the petitioner. 15. It is the next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, it is settled proposition of law that revisional power is a discretionary power of a higher authority to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order or decision of the subordinate authority, primarily focusing on jurisdictional errors or ensuring justice and fairness in the legal process. It is submitted that the records of the entire case do not allege any jurisdictional error or impropriety on the part of the Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 15/30 Mineral Development Officer. The only ground raised is that revised penalty is much less than the original penalty and has caused loss of revenue to the State, which cannot be a ground for initiating the revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the fallacy of the above argument lies in the underlying presumption of the respondent department that levy of penalty for illegal mining is a source of revenue. It is further submitted that neither penalty can be equated with State revenue nor penalty can be considered as a stream for generating revenue. Penalty under the 2019 Rule is imposed by the State as measure of compensation for causing environmental damage and also as a deterrent from causing further damage in the future. Lastly, it has been submitted that the entire proceeding before the Mines Commissioner is in gross violation of the 2019 Rules and therefore the same is fit to be quashed. 16. The respondents, at the outset, has submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable since this writ petition involves disputed questions of fact such as, competing inspection reports, discrepancies in penalty calculations, technical questions involving PMU reports, Google earth data and the factual assessment of mining activity carried out by the petitioner over the period of time. Therefore, these disputed Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 16/30 questions of fact can only be adjudicated in statutory revisional jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the same. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in this case the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.09.2024, by which it has been informed to the petitioner that Revision Case No.01 of 2024 has been initiated before the Mines Commissioner under Rule-7(c) of the Rules, 2019 and the petitioner was directed to appear. The impugned notice neither determines rights nor imposes any liability rather, it merely affords the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before the revisional authority. Further, it is a settled law that the writ petition does not lie against the show-cause notice unless the notice is without jurisdiction or patently illegal. 18. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported as (2006) 12 SCC 28 and in the case of Special Director vs. Mohammed Ghulam Ghouse reported as (2004) 3 SCC 440 and has submitted that in the aforesaid decisions it has been held that the Courts should not interfere at the stage of show-cause notice unless the notice is wholly Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 17/30 without jurisdiction. 19. Adverting to Rule 7(c) of the Rules, 2019, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid provision clearly empowers the Mines Commissioner to assume suo motu jurisdiction and call for examining the records of any proceeding by any authority subordinate to him and pass such orders as he may deem fit or when the order of his subordinate is erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, mining rules or environmental clearance. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the power of Mines Commissioner is supervisory, corrective and independent of powers under Rules 67 and 68. 20. It is the categorical submission of learned counsel for the respondents that Rule-7(c) and Rule 68 of the Rules, 2019 are not tied together and the argument of the petitioner that they must always be read together is wholly incorrect. It is argued that Rule 68 is a special statutory revision against an order of the Collector and by contrast Rule-7(c) is much wider in scope since it is not restricted to the revisionary power exercisable only against the orders passed by the Collector but against any order passed by any subordinate officer including the Mines Development Officer. It has also Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 18/30 been submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the scheme of the 2019 Rules, links Rule 7(c) with Rule 68 is also an incorrect proposition. 21. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that suo motu jurisdiction of the Mines Commissioner can be triggered by an internal departmental communication and the request made by the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya vide letter dated 13.09.2024 is merely that trigger for exercise of this suo motu independent power of the Mines Commissioner. A mere reference from a subordinate authority does not convert the proceeding into an appeal under Rule 67 nor into a revision under Rule 68 of the 2019 Rules. 22. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that by the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8436 of 2023 titled as ‘M/s Jai Bhagwati Mines vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.’ the coordinate Bench had merely quashed the earlier demand notice dated 06.03.2023 for violation of principles of natural justice and granted explicit liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh. In compliance thereto, fresh order dated 21.05.2024 was passed. It is therefore, the submission, that the aforesaid order dated 21.05.2024 was Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 19/30 passed in exercise of statutory powers, upon remand, from this Court and therefore, it does not attain finality merely because the petitioner had deposited the penalty amount. Further, the aforesaid order dated 21.05.2024 is also not immune from revisional jurisdiction of the Mines Commissioner. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents has categorically submitted that after the first inspection conducted in the month of February, 2023 a penalty of Rs.19,35,22,820/- was imposed upon the petitioner, however, upon remand from this Court, again a fresh inspection was carried out in the month of May, 2024 whereafter, a penalty of only Rs.6,81,494/- came to be imposed, which clearly shows that there is huge difference between the two penalty amounts, which raises serious doubt about the authenticity of both the penalties. Therefore, it is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that it is the solemn duty of the Mines Commissioner to protect the public interest in exercise of his supervisory powers, which has been correctly exercised by the Mines Commissioner in the facts of the present case. 24. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was given due notice and informed about the suo motu case before the Mines Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 20/30 Commissioner and was invited to participate in order to defend his case, however, the petitioner chose to preempt the statutory proceeding by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 25. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 26. Considering the facts of this case, it would be apposite to refer to the Rule-7 and Rule 68 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2019. “CHAPTER-II Establishment and Control xxxx 7. Powers and functions of the Mines Commissioner- The Mines Commissioner:- (a) Shall exercise over all control and superintendence over all Mining Officers in the State; (b) may require any Mineral Concession holder by notice to produce or caused to be produced before him such documents, accounts or other evidence which may be deemed fit; (c) may suo motto call for and examine the record of any proceeding conducted by any authority, officer or person subordinate to him under the Act and these rules and if he considers that any order passed therein is erroneous or is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, mining rules and environmental conditions, pass such order as he deems fit after giving the Mineral Concession Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 21/30 holder or the person concerned an opportunity of being heard; xxx” CHAPTER-XVI Appeals And Revision xxxxx 68. Revision–(1) The Mines Commissioner, at any time for reason to be recorded in writing, may on his own motion, and where any person aggrieved by any order passed by the Collector under these rules files an application within 60 days from the date of communication of the order, and within 75 days from the date on which an application is deemed to have been refused by the Collector, if no communication is made of such refusal, shall start a proceeding for revision of the order: Provided that an application for revision may be entertained even after the time specified as above if the applicant satisfies the Mines Commissioner that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time. (2) On receipt of the application and copies thereof under sub-rule (1), the Commissioner shall send a copy of the application, and where proceeding is started by him on his own motion, under sub-rule (1) he shall send notices of starting the proceeding and reasons thereof to each of the parties impleaded specifying a date on or before which he may make representation, if any, against the revision application. (3) After considering the records referred to in sub-rule (2) the Mines Commissioner may confirm, modify or set aside the order or pass such other Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 22/30 order in relation thereto as the Mines Commissioner may deem just and proper and his order shall be final. (4) Pending the final disposal of an application for revision, the Mines Commissioner may, for sufficient cause, stay the execution of the order against which any revision application has been made.” 27. From a bare perusal of these two Rules, that is, the powers of the Mines Commissioner exercisable under Rule-7(c) and the revisional jurisdiction under Rule 68 of the Bihar Mineral Rules, 2019 clearly show that the powers are independent, separate and distinct. 28. The Rule 7(c) is seated under Rule-7 which is clearly titled ‘Powers and functions of the Mines Commissioner’ which in turn is under Chapter-II titled ‘Establishment & Control’. The Mines Commissioner exercises overall control and superintendence over all Mining Officers of the State and is responsible for administration of these Rules of 2019 at the State level. In contrast, the Rule-68 falls under Chapter- XVI titled ‘Appeals and Revision’ and the aforesaid Rule-68 itself is clearly titled ‘Revision’. 29. Pertinently, from the reading of Rule 7(c), it is clear that the Mines Commissioner is duly empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceedings conducted by Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 23/30 any authority, officer or person subordinate to him, if he considers that any order passed is erroneous or is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, Mining Rules and Environmental conditions and thereafter, pass such appropriate orders as he may deem fit after giving an opportunity of hearing. 30. On the one hand, under Rule-7(c), is the institutional supervisory correctional jurisdiction, whereunder the Mines Commissioner can suo motu call for records in order to scrutinise or examine records of proceedings by any subordinate authority and, if an order is “erroneous” or “prejudicial” to specified public interest grounds viz. prejudicial to the interest of revenue, mining rules or environmental conditions, then he may pass an appropriate order, as he deems fit and proper, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned concession holder or the person concerned. This is the source of superintending or supervisory powers of the Mines Commissioner to correct errors and protect public interest. 31. While on the other hand, Rule-68, by contrast, is expressly labelled as “revision” and prescribes a somewhat more complete procedural code, i.e., it contemplates revision either on the own motion of the Mines Commissioner Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 24/30 with reasons to be recorded, or on an application by the aggrieved person within specified limitation periods. It also contemplates notices, representations, and final revisional outcomes such as confirm, modify or set aside, with even interim protection pending final disposal. Therefore, Rule-68 provides for the revisional adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Mines Commissioner which is distinct from the powers under Rule-7(c). 32. The Rule-68 clearly mandates that, it is imperative that there must exist an order of the Collector, where-from the matter may travel to the Mines Commissioner either on his own motion or on an application by the aggrieved person. However, Rule 7(c) is much wider in its ambit for the Mines Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceeding against any order. The Mines Commissioner is empowered to call for any record from any proceedings under the Act or the Rules made thereunder and this power is exercisable exclusively suo motu by the Mines Commissioner. The restriction, as provided statutorily for exercise of the powers under rule 7(c) are two folds, first, that the order passed by a subordinate officer be erroneous or second, that the order passed be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, mining rules or environmental conditions. Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 25/30 33. It is settled law that when two provisions appear to be conflicting, Courts must harmonize the interpretation so as to prevent any provision from being rendered redundant, nugatory or otiose. In the present case, it is abundantly clear that the powers of the Mines Commissioner under Rule-7(c) and Rule-68 are distinct and separate. 34. While the powers under Rule-7(c) are supervisory or superintending in nature, execrable exclusively suo motu and can emanate from any proceeding from any subordinate officer. On the other hand, the powers under Rule- 68 are revisional and adjudicatory simpliciter, wherein the orders passed by the Collector may be subjected to revisional scrutiny before the Mines Commissioner. 35. Merely because Rule 68 also uses the words ‘may on his own motion’ it does not subsume the separate and distinct powers of the Mines Commissioner under Rule-7(c). 36. From the reading of both these afore-quoted Rules, this Court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner that the powers of the Mines Commissioner under Rule 7(c) must always and mandatorily be read conjointly with the Revisional powers of the Mines Commissioner under Rule 68 is not appealing to this Court. It is, therefore, inescapable Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 26/30 that the provisions provides for two different streams of powers to the Mines Commissioner and such powers are distinct and separate, which can be triggered by way of an internal communication. 37. In the present case, this Court has perused the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Mines Commissioner in Revision Case No.01 of 2024 which has been brought on record by the petitioner by way of a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. The relevant portion of the order of penalty dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Mines Commissioner is reproduced herein-below:- “miLFkkfir vfHkys[kksa dks ns[kkA ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 8436 @ 2023 esa fnukad 21-09-2023 dks ikfjr vkns”k ls iwoZ ds ekax i= dks laosnd dks viuk i{k j[kus dk ekSdk fn;s fcuk fuxZr djus ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa fu;ekuqlkj dkjZOkkbZ dh Lora=rk nh x;h FkhA orZeku ekeys esa [kfut fodkl inkf/kdkjh] x;k us fnukad 21-05-2024 ds vkns”k ls lfefr }kjk iwoZ esa izfrosfnr voS/k [kuu ds fo:) vf/kjksfir n.M dh jkf”k vR;ar de dj fn;kA Ik;kZoj.k laj{k.k ,oa jktLofgr esa voS/k [kuu ds fo:) dBksj dkjZokbZ lqfuf”pr djus ds fy, fnukad 21-05-2024 ds vkns”k dh leh{kk vko”;d gSA fu;e&68 ds rgr lekgRRkkZ }kjk ikfjr vkns”k ds ekeys esa iqujh{k.k izkjaHk dh tk ldrh gSA ;g rF; lgh gS fdURkq fu;e&7 (x) ds rgr [kku vk;qDr fdlh Hkh izkf/kdkj }kjk ikfjr xyr vkns”k vFkok jkTkLo] [kku fu;ekoyh ds fgrksa rFkk Ik;kZoj.kh; “krksZa ds izfrdwy vkns”kksa ds fy, Loizsj.; ls dk;Zokgh dk ijh{k.k dj lacaf/kr O;fDr dks lquokbZ dk volj nsdj mi;qDr vkns”k ikfjr dj ldrs gSA orZeku [kfut fodkl inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr vkosnu ds lkFk fnukad 21-05-2024 Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 27/30 dks ikfjr vkns”k ds laKku esa vkrs gh ;g dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh x;h gS] ftlesa laosnd dks uksfVl fuxZr djus] tkWap esa mifLFkfr lqfuf”pr djus ,oa tkWap izfrosnu ij viuk i{k j[kus dk iw.kZ ekSdk nsus ds i”pkr ;g vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA blfy, laosnd dh iqujh{k.k dk;Zokgh ds oS/krk ds laca/k esa pqukSrh Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA fu;e&7 (x) ds rgr dk;Zokgh izkjaHk djus ds fy, dksbZ le; lhek ugha gSA oSls Hkh orZeku dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djus gsrq Ik;kZIRk vk/kkj gS] ftldk mYYks[k vkns”k ds izkjaHk esa gh fd;k x;k gSA bl U;k;ky; }kjk xfBr lfefr us laosnd dh mifLFkfr esa vk/kqfud rduhd ds vk/kkj ij tkWap dj izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k gS ,oa blij viuk i{k j[kus gsrq laosnd dks ekSdk fn;k x;k gSA fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e 46 (6) ds rgr ys[kk@ fjVuZ ;k vU; lk{; ds vfrfjDr vk/kqfud izkS|ksfxdh ;k v|Rku jhfr dk iz;ksx dj [kuu dh ek=k dks fofuf”pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA blfy, laosnd dk ;g dFku fd Google Earth Software ij vk/kkfjr n.M yxkus dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gS] vk/kkjghu gSA blds vfrfjDr lfefr }kjk fu/kkZfjr {ks= ls ckgj izfrosfnr voS/k [kuu ds laca/k esa laosnd }kjk dksbZ rF; ugha j[kk x;k gS] ftlls Li’V gksrk gS fd lfefr }kjk izfrosfnr voS/k [kuu dks og Lohdkj dj jgs gSaA fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh] 2019 dk fu;e&11(1)fuEu izdkj gS%& ‘‘11 (1) &dksbZ O;fDr fdlh {ks= esa] [kuu lafØ;k, bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu vuqnRRk] ;Fkk fLFkfr] vuqKfIr ;k [kuu iV~Vsa ds v/khu rFkk mlds fuca/kuksa vkSj “krksZa ds vuqlkj djsxk] vFkok ugha’’ fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) (la”kks/ku) fu;ekoyh] 2021 dk fu;e&56 (1) fuEu izdkj gS%& ‘‘56(1)&dksbZ O;fDr fdlh {ks= esa] mR[kuu ;k fudklh ;k [kuu lafØ;k,a bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu lekuqnku] ;k vuqKfIRk ;k vU; fdlh vuqefr ds fcuk ;k ifjogu ;k Hk.Mkj.k ;k ifjogu dk dkj.k ;k fdlh [kfut dk Hk.Mkj.k fcuk oS/k pkyku ;k vuqKfIr ds ugha djsxkA’’ Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 28/30 esllZ t; Hkxorh ekbUl dks fcgkj jkT; [kuu fuxe }kjk fuf”pr {ks= ds fy, [kuu dh vuqefr nh x;h FkhA fu/kkZfjr {ks= ls ckgj [kuu mijksDr fu;eksa dk mYya?ku gSA rRdkyhu [kfut fodkl inkf/kdkjh] x;k }kjk fnukad 16-11-2023 dks ikfjr vkns”k fcuk rduhdh leh{kk ds ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] tks [kkfjt djus ;ksX; gSA fnukad 05-11-2024 dks funs”kd] [kku dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr }kjk fu;e&46 (6) ds rgr vuqekU; vk/kqfud@ v|ru rduhd dk mi;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 13-12-2024 dks lefiZr izfrosnu dh dafMdk &1 esa f[ktjljk; ckyw?kkV esa laosnd dks [kuu ds fy, vuqekU; vof/k esa dksbZ [kuu dk lk{; ugha ik;k x;k] tcfd laosnd }kjk mDr vof/k esa 72]855-65 MT dk pkyku fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA blls Li’V gS fd laosnd }kjk Ik;kZoj.kh Lohd`r {ks= ls fdlh brj fdlh vU; LFkku ls] tks muds i{k esa Lohd`r ugha Fkk] ls 72]855-65 MT ckyw dk voS/k [kuu fd;k x;k gSA vr% laosnd }kjk fnukad &29-10-2024 ,oa 18-02-2025 dks lefiZr fyf[kr vfHkdFku rF; ls ijs gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ,oa lfefr }kjk fnuakd 13-12-2024 dks lefiZr tkWaPk izfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq, fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e&7 (x) esa iznRRk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, laosnd esllZ t; Hkxorh ekbUl ds fo:) Ik;kZoj.kh; Lohd`fr esa fu/kkZfjr {ks= ls ckgj voS/k [kuu ds fy, : 19]35]22]820@& (mUUkhl djksM iSarhl yk[k ckbZLk gtkj vkB lkS chl) dk n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa jkf”k tek ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa jkf”k dh olwyh gsrq fu;ekuqlkj vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dk vkns”k lekgRrkZ] x;k dks fn;k tkrk gSA ys[kkfir ,oa la”kksf/kr g0@& g0@& (ueZns”oj yky) (ueZns”oj yky) [kku vk;qDr] fcgkj [kku vk;qDr] fcgkj” 38. The Mines Commissioner in the aforesaid order has drawn strength from Rule-7(c) of the Rules, 2019 and the inspection report dated 13.12.2024 and thereafter imposed a Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 29/30 penalty of Rs.19,35,22,820/- upon the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the exercise of powers under Rule 7(c) by the Mines Commissioner cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity on the score of jurisdiction exercised by the Mines Commissioner. 39. However, this Court has noted that the inspection report submitted by the Joint Committee constituted by the Mines Commissioner was the very basis on which the aforesaid penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. The inspection was carried out behind the back of the petitioner. Since the inspection, conducted by the Committee constituted by the Mines Commissioner, was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, the same stands vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, cannot form the basis for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. Once the core itself is vitiated, the consequent order of penalty dated 24.02.2025 can not be sustained to the extent that it is based on the inspection report dated 13.12.2024. 40. In view of the above, the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner vide order dated 24.02.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Mines Commissioner to conduct a fresh inspection, in presence of the petitioner, and Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026 30/30 after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, the Mines Commissioner may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 41. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the above extent. pawan/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE 22.12.2025 Uploading Date 12.03.2026 Transmission Date