Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140534-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38997 of 2022 Petitioner :- Harnarayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-functionaries. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Mahoba by which he has imposed penalty of Rs.17,28,500/- upon the petitioner for illegal mining on the area which was beyond the allotted area of the petitioner. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the District Magistrate has referred in the order some inspection made by the respondent-authorities and on inspection, it was found that the petitioner was doing mining on Gata No.277 which was not his allotted area and has excavated 1365 cubic meter sand/morang. It is further contended that before imposing any penalty, the District Magistrate ought to have supplied the material relied on by him in concluding that the petitioner has excavated 1365 cubic meter sand/morang from Gata No. 277 and should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to give reply to the allegation of illegal excavation by the petitioner. It is contended that since the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioner was given the notice dated 17.10.2022 enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the counter affidavit and thus, the opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, perusal of the alleged notice dated 17.10.2022 enclosed as Annexure No.4 to the counter affidavit discloses that said notice directs the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty i.e. Rs.17,28,500/-. Perusal of the said notice does not disclose the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the notice is vague. In view of the said fact, the reliance placed by learned Standing Counsel on the notice dated 17.10.2022 enclosed as Annexure no.4 to the counter affidavit is misconceived. 6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that only on the basis of the inspection conducted by respondent-authorities, the District Magistrate held that the petitioner was guilty of illegal excavation of 1365 cubic meter sand/morang. The impugned order does not disclose that any notice and opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before imposing penalty. 7. In such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside with liberty to the District Magistrate, Mahoba to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after supplying the material to the petitioner on the basis of which the charge of illegal excavation has been alleged against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 SS (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad