HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 2179 of 2020 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vedant Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, the revisional order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Special Secretary, State of U.P. in Revision No.110 (R) VSM/2019 and the consequential demand notice raised by the Mines Officer, Sonbhadra dated 27.12.2019. 3. A short contention has been advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that it was the specific case before the Revisional Authority that before passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 by which the lease of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that the report of Tehsildar on which the reliance has been placed by the District Magistrate, was not supplied to the petitioner. 4. It is further contended that under Rule 66 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, the Tehsildar has no power to conduct any inspection of the mining site. Accordingly, it is contended that the order passed by the District Magistrate as well as Revisional Authority cannot be sustained in law. 5. We find the petitioner has taken specific ground in memo of revision in paragraph 18 that the authority before passing order dated 14.08.2019 did Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Agarwal, Vedant Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Suraj Builders .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) not give any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. The petitioner has also made specific averment in paragraph 23 of the writ petition with regard to the fact that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the authority before passing order dated 14.08.2019. Paragraph 23 of the writ petition is reproduced herein below: "23. That in the meantime, behind the back of the petitioner, an ex-parte inspection was conducted by the Tehsildar, Duddhi alone at the mining area of the petitioner. An ex-parte inspection report dated 03.05.2019 was submitted in which it was alleged that the petitioner has carried out mining activity beyond the allotted/approved mining area. A show-cause notice dated 26.06.2019 was consequently issued to the petitioner." 6. Per-contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would contend that the Tehsildar has power under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 to conduct any inspection. However, he could not demonstrate from the record that the opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 7. Be that as it may, the specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order and further the report on which the reliance has been placed by the respondent, has also not been supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. Paragraph 23 of the writ petition in which the necessary averments have been made is extracted above. 8. In the paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, the reply of the paragraph 23 of the writ petition has been given, which is reproduced herein below: "18. That the contents of paragraph No. 23 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated, hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that inspection of lease hold area was conducted by the Tahsildar, Duddhi on 02.05.2019 and after the inspection Tahsildar submitted report on 03.05.2019 which indicate that mining area was allotted to the petitioner as 11.336 hect. but petitioner did illegal mining over the area 0.1800 Hect., which was not allotted to him. Petitioner has also did illegal mining over plot no. 1 of Village Bodhadeeh over an area 3.9000 Hect. thus the total additional area i.e. 4.080 Hect, over which the illegal mining was done by the petitioner, therefore on 26.06.2019 a show cause notice was issued to petitioner." 9. We find that the specific averment made in the paragraph 23 of writ petition with regard to the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice has not been categorically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. WRIC No. 2179 of 2020 2 10. In such view of the fact, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, are set aside with liberty to the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to pass afresh order after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after supplying all the materials to the petitioner on which he places reliance against the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 11. The writ petition is allowed subject to observation above with no order as to cost. September 18, 2025 Mohit WRIC No. 2179 of 2020 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad