1 2025:CGHC:46158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4803 of 2025 Shailendra S/o Rajkumar Nagvanshi Aged About 34 Years Occ Business 293, Tikrapara, Ward No. 21, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of The Mineral Resources Department Of C.G. Govt. Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate Department Of Geology And Mining, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Collector Office, (Mineral Branch) Collector Office, Dhamtari, Dist Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - District Mining Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent(s ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Kalpesh A. Kothari & Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG with Mr. Ajeet Singh, GA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: 2 “10. Reliefs Sought: A. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, hold and declare that the impugned communication/order 19.06.2025 passed by Mining Officer respondent no. 4, Dhamtari thereby arbitrarily cancelling the stock license granted to petitioner on 29.04.2025 for sand stocking in gram: Donor, Khasra No. 1426, area 0.14 hectare, Tah: Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) is arbitrary, illegal, and does not stand to the scrutiny of law; (Annexure-P/1) B. by an appropriate direction direct 4th respondent to immediately restore the stockiest license issued dated 19.06.2025 in favour of the petitioner along with Rs.50,000/- security deposit. C. Kindly grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. The petitioner is approaching this Court by way of present Writ Petition invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking quashment of the impugned communication/order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4, whereby cancelling the stockiest license issued dated 29.04.2025 for storage of sand upto 6000 Cubic Meter in Gram: Donor, Ta: Dhamtari, Khasra No.1426, area 0.14 hectare for period from 07.06.2023 to 06.06.2026 for 3 years carrying on business of minor mineral sand. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned communication/order dated 19.06.2025, is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice as while cancelling the stockiest license of petitioner, respondent No.4 has not backed any legislation, therefore, impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. Respondent No.4 came to conclusion of cancellation of stockiest license and forfeit deposit of Rs.50,000/- without assigning any reason, which is against the fundamental right of doing business. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that after considering all the aspects of the matter respondent-authority has passed the impugned order/communication dated 19.06.2025, hence, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order. He further contended that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of reliefs, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that respondent No.4 has cancelled the stockiest license of petitioner and forfeit the deposit of Rs.50,000/- without assigning any reason in the impugned order, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set- 4 aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned communication/order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. 8. Petitioner is permitted to file the reply/objection to the demand notice within ‘07 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in-turn the Authority concerned is directed to consider and decide the said objection in accordance with law/rules within an outer limit of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of such objection. 9. It is made clear that this Court has passed the order only on the point that norms of the natural justice has not been complied with. This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-