Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12479-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2021 of 2025 Petitioner :- Annu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mining And Geology Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshuman Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,Geetika Yadav,Nishchay Anand Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Anshuman Singh alongwith Sri Nishay Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Addl. C.S.C. and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged an order/notice dated 5.10.2024 by which it has been concluded that the petitioner has indulged in illegal mining on Gata No. 1329. This conclusion has been arrived at on the basis of several inquiry/inspection reports, which are referred in the impugned order. The consequential action of issuance of recovery-certificate dated 30.11.2024 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 93,640.00 has also been challenged. 3. Contention is that none of the reports/material referred in the impugned order were ever supplied to the petitioner alongwith show-cause notices issued to him and in fact after submission of his reply certain fresh material was collected and has been relied in the impugned order, which also has not been provided to the petitioner. 4. On a bare reading of the impugned order, we do find that after issuance of notices to the petitioner certain fresh inquiry/inspection was got down. Even otherwise, when we peruse the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner, copies of which are annexed with the petition, we do not find any endorsement therein about such material or reports, which were the basis of impugned show cause notices having been annexed with the said notices. If any adverse material is being relied upon by the opp. parties, especially one which has been collected after submission of response by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, then it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate, Bahraich, to provide the petitioner all the said material, as it would be necessary for compliance of the principles of Natural Justice. An order having civil/penal consequences such as the one which has been passed herein could not have been passed without providing the petitioner all the relevant material, which was the basis for proceeding against him and passing the impugned order. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do see no reason to call for a counter affidavit and quash the impugned order dated 5.9.2024 as also the consequential action, i.e. recovery- certificate, impugned herein, however, with a direction to the District Magistrate, Bahraich, to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner, annexing therewith the reports on which he seeks to rely, whereupon the petitioner shall submit a response within the stipulated period and then a fresh order shall be passed as per law by the District Magistrate, Bahraich. 6. 6. If the petitioner does not respond to the show-cause notice, it shall be open for the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order, as aforesaid. 7. Let this exercise be completed within 2 months. 8. With the above observations/directions the writ petition is allowed. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 3.3.2025/A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench