1 2025:CGHC:50418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3926 of 2025 Mohammed Aslam Meman S/o Shri Mohammed Bashir Meman Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Mineral Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director (Mining), Mineral Resources Department, Indravati Bhavan, Block-4, Second Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham C.G. 4 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kabirdham, District Kabirdham C.G. 5 - Revenue Inspector, Sahas Lohara Tehsil- Lohara, District Kabirdham C.G. 6 - Halka Patwari No. 9, Sahas Lohara Tehsil- Lohara, District Kabirdham C.G. 7 - Mining Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondent(s) 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manuraj Singh & Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10. RELIEF (S) SOUGHT: 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned demand notice dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Mining Officer, Kabirdham. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, quashing the relevant portion of the Collector's final order dated 14.05.2025 in respect of all the three Leases (ANNEXURE P-16, ANNEXURE P-17 and ANNEXURE P-18). 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is a lease-holder, who has been granted a quarry lease for minor mineral (limestone), he is the proprietor of M/s. Taj Crusher and M/s. Sahaspur Lohara Limestone Quarry, he is holding total three 3 valid quarry leases for minor mineral limestone in the village: Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) and all the leased are duly sanctioned by the concerned competent authorities. Names of the quarry leases reproduced hereinbelow:- “(a). Quarry lease in his individual capacity, ie. Mohd. Aslam Meman, is situated over Khasra No.956 and 965/2 (Lease No.1'). (b). M/s. Taj Crusher over Khasra Nos.955/1 and 957/2,3,4 (Lease No. 2'). (c). M/s. Sahaspur Lohara Limestone Quarry is situated over, over Khasra Nos.933/1 to 933/5 and 964/2,3,4 (Lease No. 3).” 4. Learned Senior counsel further contended that on 05.01.2024, the Officials of the Mining Department has conducted a surprise inspection at the petitioner's lease sites and on the very same day, they prepared the Panchnama (inspection memo) and directed/ordered an immediate halt to all the mining activities of the petitioner, this action was taken without issuing any prior show cause notice or following any procedure contemplated by law. Aggrieved by this high-handed action, petitioner has approached before this Court by filing the writ petition (WPC No.860/2024), which was allowed on 13.02.2024 and Panchnama dated 05.01.2024 as well as consequential notice dated 19.01.2024 issued to the petitioner has been quashed. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that on 03.03.2025, the Collector (respondent No.3) constituted an official team to carry out an inspection of the mining leased areas held by the petitioner and on 4 the very same day, i.e, 03.03.2025, the Mining Officer issued a notice to the petitioner vide letter No.242 dated 03.03.2025, informing that an inspection would be conducted on 05.03.2025 at 10:00 a.m in all the three leased areas of the petitioner. Pursuant to said notice, inspection has been conducted by the constituted team in the leased areas of the petitioner on 05.03.2025 and during the inspection, mining area and relevant documents were verified and reviewed by the officials. Simultaneously on the same day i.e. 05.03.2025, a separate and parallel inspection was conducted in outside areas of mining lease boundaries to ascertain any instances of alleged illegal mining activities. On the next day, ie, on 06.03.2025, on the basis of above inspections, the Collector issued the three separate show-cause notices in respect of each leased of the petitioner. On 17.06.2025, the Mining Officer issued a memorandum/demand notice bearing No.684/Kh.Li./Khani/2025, (Annexure P-1) addressed to the petitioner which states that as per report of SDO(R) and subsequent reports, petitioner has carried out illegal mining of limestone outside the sanctioned leased area and recites the computed figures of volume (6492.24 m³ & 64008 m³) and the corresponding market value (Rs.25,70,928.00/-, plus Rs.50,000/-, totaling Rs.26,20,928/- & Rs.2,53,47,168/-, plus Rs.50,000/-, totaling Rs.2,53,97,168/-), as the proposed penalty for the alleged illegal extraction invoking Sections 21 to 23B of the Mines and 5 Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and Rule 71 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 (Rules of 2015) directed the petitioner to deposit the above amount through treasury challan. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that previously the petitioner has filed the three writ petitions [W.P.(C) No. 2136/2025, W.P.(C) No. 2187/2025 & W.P. (C) No.2182/2025] corresponding to Lease No.1, Lease No. 2 & Lease No.3 respectively and this Court has passed the order and directed the concerned respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's replies and pass appropriate reasoned orders strictly in accordance with law ‘within 10 working days’ from the date of receipt of copy of the Courts’ order. Pursuant to which, on 14.05.2025, the Collector (Mining)/respondent no.3 has passed a final order disposing of the proceedings that originated from the suspension order dated 06.03.2025. Learned Counsel further contended that no material documents such as (inspection maps, field measurement books, survey plans or other foundational evidence) have been supplied to the petitioner, despite repeated representations, this denial of relevant documents violates the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T. Takano versus SEBI reported in (2022) 8 SCC 162, wherein it was held that non-supply of relied-upon documents vitiates the proceedings and renders the adjudication process void. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with 6 aforementioned reliefs. 5. Learned State Counsel contended that petitioner is having alternate remedy to file an appeal under Rule 77(2) of the Rules of 2015. Neither any representation nor any document has been filed by the petitioner. Further, there was a specific allegation that the petitioner is carrying out excavation beyond the sanctioned leased area and this fact can only be ascertain by the concerned revenue authority. The Revenue Officials upon verification of the spot came to the conclusion that the petitioner is engaged in excavation in the area which is beyond the leased deed area. Learned Counsel further contended that petitioner is present in the entire proceedings and it is a clear cut case of illegal excavation. The provision of Section 23B of the MMDR Act is totally misplaced because Sectino 23B deals with powers to search and in the present case Halka Patwari has not conducted any search and infact he has only taken the measurement of the area as per the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Code of 1959). Learned Counsel further contended that after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the concerned Collector has passed the order impugned in which there is no need for interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition alongwith the order impugned (Annexure P-16 to 18). 7 7. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the Collector has passed the impugned order on the basis following report/letter: “1. Letter No.773, dated 08.05.2025 received from the Regional Officer, Chhattisgarh Environment Protection Board, Bhilai, (CG). 2. Report No.1687 dated 09.05.2025 received from Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sahaslohara and inspection note of Halka Patwari dated 08.05.2025. 3. Report No.401 dated 06.05.2025 received from District Labour Officer, Kabirdham. 4. Report dated 09.05.2025 received from the Assistant Mining Officer, Kabirdham, who conducted the inspection and made report before the Collector (Mining).” 8. In the instant petition, grievance of the petitioner is that the concerned respondent-authority has not supply the above report/letter to him. 9. Perusal of the reply filed by the respondent/State also reveals that in the reply, there is no mentioned that the above reports/letter has been supplied to the petitioner by the concerned respondent- authority before passing of the impugned order, hence, it is clear cut violation of the norms of the nature justice and when the norms of the natural justice has not been complied with, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable before this Court. 10. In view of above discussion/observation, this Court is of the considered view that without giving sufficient/proper opportunity of hearing means without supplying the above report/letter to the petitioner, based upon which, the Collector concerned has passed the impugned order, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable in 8 the eyes of law. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.05.2025 in respect of all the three Leases (Annexures P-16, P- 17 & P-18) and impugned demand notice dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed/set-aside. 12. Matter is remanded back to the concerned Collector with a direction to supply of above reports/letter to the petitioner within ‘15 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and, thereafter, adjudicate the matter afresh on its own merits without influenced of this order in accordance with law/rules/regulation within further ‘45 days’ after giving sufficient/proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (sufficient time be given to the petitioner for filing of the detailed reply). 13. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and this order is passed only on the basis of non-supply of the above report/letter to the petitioner by the concerned respondent-authority. It is also directed to the petitioner to co-operate in the proceeding and when the case of hearing is fixed he shall follow all the order/direction of concerned Authority. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-