Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141596-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34330 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Veer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. This Court on 19.11.2022 passed the following order :- "The case of the petitioner is that his tractor ladened with Sand was seized by the police as a result whereof he applied for release of the tractor. On the release application dated 29.11.2021, the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 was passed by Senior Mining Officer, Mathura/District Officer, Mathura requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 lacs by way of penalty for damage to the environment and Rs. 26,398.40/- towards compounding charges, royalty and value of the minerals. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has accepted his guilt and has applied for compounding therefore the petitioner can have no grievance in respect of the amount of Rs. 26,398.40/- demanded from him and in so far as the amount of Rs. 2 lacs is concerned, that is as per the order of the National Green Tribunal. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate to require the learned Standing Counsel to file a detailed counter-affidavit disclosing the basis of the penalty of Rs. 2 lacs imposed upon the petitioner. It shall also be disclosed whether the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing before imposing such penalty. The counter-affidavit, as directed above, be filed by 19th December, 2022. List this matter on 19th December, 2022. In the meantime, if the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs. 26,398.40/- and submit security to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, other than cash and bank guarantee, of the amount equivalent to Rs. 2 lacs, the seized tractor shall be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner." 2. From the perusal of the order dated 19.11.2022, it is evident that the Court has directed the respondents to state in the counter affidavit as to whether before imposing the penalty, any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not. We have gone through the counter affidavit and we do not find any assertion in the counter affidavit that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before imposing the penalty. Since the imposition of penalty entails a civil consequence, therefore, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice ought to have been followed by the respondent-authority by issuing a showcause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner as to why penalty may not be imposed upon him since it is not manifest from the record that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2. 3. In such view of the fact, the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained upon in law. 4. Accordingly, impugned order dated 28.03.2022 is set-aside to the extent it imposed a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- upon the petitioner with liberty to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 KS (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad