Patna High Court
Rajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The penalty order dated 21‑11‑2024 is quashed as it contravenes the principles of natural justice; the matter is remitted for a reasoned order after a hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, a government contractor, had two trucks seized by the Mines Inspector under the Bihar Mineral Prevention Rules, 2019, for allegedly transporting stone chips without a valid transit challan. A penalty of Rs 16,95,626 was imposed by the Mineral Development Officer without any show‑cause notice or hearing. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking release of the vehicles and quashing of the penalty order, alleging violation of natural justice. The High Court held that the penalty order was passed in breach of the audi alteram partem rule, as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Mineral Development Officer to pass a reasoned order after granting a hearing. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicles and the imposition of a penalty without a show‑cause notice violate the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Mineral Development Officer was authorized to levy the penalty under the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 without affording a hearing.
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 in respect of the administrative action taken under the 2019 Rules.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- administrative law
- seizure of vehicles
- Bihar Mineral Rules
- writ petition
- Article 226
- quashing order
- remand
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18425 of 2024
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Son of Sri Ram Babu Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Ambedkar
Vidyala Tola, P.O. and P.S.- Birpur, District- Begusarai, Pin- 851127.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary- cum- Mines
Commissioner, Mines and Geology Department, Bihar, Patna-15.
2. The Principal Secretary-cum- Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Bihar, Patna-15.
3. The District Mining Officer, Mines and Geology Department, Begusarai.
4. The Mineral Development Officer, Mines and Geology Department,
Begusarai.
5. The Mines Inspector, Mines and Geology Department, Begusarai.
6. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
7. The Officer-In-Charge, Manjhaul Police Station, District - Begusarai.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Sahay, Adocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Standing Counsel (25)
For the Mines Dept. : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Spl. P.P., Mines.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i. For commanding and directing the
concerned respondents to release the
vehicles of the petitioner with immediate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
2/15
effect bearing its number Truck / Hywa
No.BR09GB – 6708 and BR09GB-6709
which was seized in most arbitrary
manner and without giving any receipt of
such seizure.
ii. For commanding and directing the
concerned respondents to take
appropriate steps against those officers,
who have done such type of illegal act.
iii. For passing such an order or orders in
favour of the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
2. During the pendency of this case, the
petitioner has filed an interlocutory application viz. I.A. No.01
of 2025 for amending the prayer portion of the main writ
petition, which was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2025 and the
following additional prayer stood incorporated in the main writ
petition:-
“iv. For quashing of letter no.1005 dated 21.11.2024,
as contained in Annexure-P/9 of this petition,
whereby and whereunder the In-charge Mineral
Development Officer, Begusarai has passed
recovery order of penalty for a tune of
Rs.16,95,626/- from the petitioner alleging illegal
procuration of minor minerals.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a
registered Government Contractor for several departments of
the Government of Bihar. The petitioner was allotted a work for
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
3/15
repair of six roads with the mandate of five years maintenance
under the New Maintenance Policy, 2018 and thereafter an
agreement was entered into between the parties. According to
the petitioner, for construction/repair of said roads, he had to use
stone materials after transporting the same by rail racks, for
which the petitioner had purchased the stone chips from valid
supplier i.e. M/s. Dinesh Yadav. The Executive Engineer, Rural
Works Department, Works Division, Manjhaul, Bakhri vide his
letter dated 12.09.2024 allowed the petitioner to execute the
work by transporting stone chips through his vehicles. It is also
the case of the petitioner that in the letter dated 12.09.2024, it
has clearly been stated that the work has been allotted to the
petitioner under the agreement and he had to complete the same
on or before 13.12.2024 and further the petitioner had stacked
the stone chips at his concrete batching plot which was situated
at IOC road as no sufficient space was available at the work site.
4. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that all
of a sudden the vehicles of the petitioner loaded with stone
chips have been seized by the Mines Inspector on the ground
that the petitioner had violated the Bihar Mineral Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage Rules-2019 and
thereafter, he sent the vehicles of the petitioner to the Majhaul
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
4/15
Police Station within the district of Begusarai.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that he,
vide his representation dated 18.10.2024, requested the District
Magistrate, Begusarai to release his vehicles as he has not
violated the aforesaid Rules, as alleged. According to the
petitioner, vide letter dated 28.10.2024, the Officer-In-Charge of
District Confidential Section, Begusarai directed the Officer-In-
Charge, Legal Section, Begusarai and the District Mining
Officer, Begusarai for taking necessary steps upon the
representation of the petitioner regarding the release of his
vehicles but no action was taken which compelled the petitioner
to file the present writ petition. It is also the case of the
petitioner that during the pendency of this writ petition, the
Mineral Development Officer, Begusarai has passed the order of
penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,95,626/- against the petitioner
which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an
interlocutory application.
6. Adverting to the annexure P/2 Series, which
are photocopies of the invoices and the transporting challans in
prescribed Form-D as well as electronically transmitted Railway
Receipts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
stone chips were being transported by the petitioner under a
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
5/15
valid challan for the purpose of government work, however, the
Mining Inspector, Begusarai, without appreciating the
documents produced by the petitioner, has proceed to seize the
vehicles.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
particularly emphasized that during the pendency of the present
writ, while this Court was in seisin of the matter, the Mineral
Development Officer, Mines and Geology Department,
Begusarai, without affording any opportunity of hearing and in
complete violation of the principles of natural justice, has
proceeded to impose penalty upon the petitioner vide impugned
order dated 21.11.2024.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 3 to 6 has submitted that during an inspection
conducted by the competent authority, the vehicles of the
petitioner were intercepted while transporting stone chips and
were seized as no valid transit challan was produced by the
driver of the trucks in question. He further submits that the
seizure was carried out strictly in accordance with the statutory
procedure.
9. Learned counsel for the answering
respondents further submits that vide letter dated 21.11.2024,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
6/15
the compounding penalty of Rs. 16,95,626/- was imposed upon
the petitioner in accordance with law.
10. It has further been submitted that in the
present case, upon seizure of the vehicles and issuance of
compounding notice under Rule 56, the petitioner had the option
either to avail compounding by depositing the prescribed
amount or to challenge the action before the competent
authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
Rules but instead of availing such statutory remedy, the
petitioner has directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. In support of the submission, learned counsel
for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of
India reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510.
12. It has further been submitted that Rule 43 of
the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 clearly mandates that no
person shall transport any mineral except under a valid transit
challan generated in accordance with the prescribed procedure
but in the present case, at the time of interception on
17.10.2024, the drivers of the vehicles failed to produce any
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
7/15
valid transit challan or statutory authorization permitting
transportation of stone chips. Therefore, the vehicles of the
petitioner have rightly been seized.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submits that the questions whether the mineral was covered
under a valid license, duly entered in the prescribed register,
transported through e-challan system and sourced lawfully are
disputed questions of fact requiring verification of records and
regulatory compliance under the 2019 Rules. It is well settled
that disputed questions of fact involving evidentiary
examination cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under
Article 226.
14. Lastly, it has been submitted that the seizure
of the vehicles of the petitioner was lawful and therefore, this
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and have
carefully perused the records of the case.
16. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2025, has
released the vehicles of the petitioner with certain conditions.
17. During the pendency of the present writ
petition, while this Court was in seisin with the matter, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
8/15
Mineral Development Officer, Mines and Geology Department,
Begusarai has proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs.16,95,626/-
upon the petitioner for his seized vehicles, however, pertinently
before imposing such a penalty the concerned authority did not
issue any show-cause to the petitioner and the petitioner was
never heard.
18. It would be apposite to refer to a decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy
vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported as (2025) 7 SCC 545 wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized on the
imperativeness of principles of natural justice, particularly,
before an administrative authority acting as a quasi judicial
function and has held as under:-
“43. The opportunity of hearing is considered so
fundamental to any civilised legal system that
the courts have read the principles of natural
justice into an enactment to save it from being
declared unconstitutional on procedural
grounds [Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545] .
44. It has been argued before us that if the failure to
provide hearing does not cause prejudice,
observing the principle of natural justice may
not be necessary. In this context, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan
[S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379]
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
9/15
speaking through Chinappa Reddy, J.
considered such arguments to be “pernicious”
and held that “[t]he non-observance of natural
justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof
of prejudice independently of proof of denial of
natural justice is unnecessary”. The Supreme
Court, however, has drawn out an exception
where “on the admitted or indisputable facts
only one conclusion is possible, and under the
law only one penalty is permissible, then the
Court may not compel the observance of natural
justice” [Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 : (1981) 51 Comp Cas
210; Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2000 SCC (L&S)
965].
45. Professor I.P. Massey [I.P. Massey,
Administrative Law (8th Edn., 2012).] has
commented on this shift as under:
“Before the decision of the highest Court
in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379], the
rule was that the principles of natural
justice shall apply only when an
administrative action has caused some
prejudice to the person, meaning thereby
that he must have suffered some “civil
consequences”. Therefore, the person
had to show something extra in order to
prove “prejudice” or civil consequences.
This approach had stultified the growth
of administrative law within an area of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
10/15
highly practical significance. It is
gratifying that in Jagmohan [S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379] , the
Court took a bold step in holding that a
separate showing of prejudice is not
necessary. The non-observance of
natural justice is in itself prejudice
caused. However, merely because facts
are admitted or are undisputable it does
not follow that the principles of natural
justice need not be observed.”
46. In State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [State
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC
364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717], the Supreme Court
observed that where an enquiry is not convened
by any statutory provision and the only
obligation of the administrative authority is to
observe the principles of natural justice, the
court/tribunal should make a distinction
between a total violation of the rule of fair
hearing and violation of the facet of that rule. In
other words, a distinction must be made between
“no opportunity” or “no adequate
opportunity”. In the case of the former, the
order passed would undoubtedly be invalid and
the authority may be asked to conduct
proceedings afresh according to the rule of fair
hearing. But in the latter case, the effect of
violation of a facet of the rule of fair hearing
has to be examined from the standpoint of
prejudice.
47. In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
11/15
[Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8
SCC 519 : (2015) 33 GSTR 1], this Court dealt
with the prejudice question as under: (SCC p.
540, para 42)
“42. So far so good. However, an
important question posed by Mr Sorabjee
is as to whether it is open to the
authority, which has to take a decision, to
dispense with the requirement of the
principles of natural justice on the
ground that affording such an
opportunity will not make any difference?
To put it otherwise, can the
administrative authority dispense with
the requirement of issuing notice by itself
deciding that no prejudice will be caused
to the person against whom the action is
contemplated? Answer has to be in the
negative. It is not permissible for the
authority to jump over the compliance
of the principles of natural justice on
the ground that even if hearing had
been provided it would have served no
useful purpose. The opportunity of
hearing will serve the purpose or not
has to be considered at a later stage and
such things cannot be presumed by the
authority. This was so held by the
English Court way back in the year 1943
in General Medical Council v. Spackman
[1943 AC 627 (HL)]. This Court also
spoke in the same language in Board of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
12/15
High School & Intermediate Education,
U.P. v. Chitra Srivastava [Board of High
School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v.
Chitra Srivastava, (1970) 1 SCC 121]
….”
48. In a more recent decision in State of U.P. v
Sudhir Kumar Singh [State of U.P. v. Sudhir
Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706] , the position
of law was summarised as under: (SCC pp. 748-
49, para 42)
“42. …42.1. Natural justice is a flexible
tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach
out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The
breach of the audi alteram partem rule
cannot by itself, without more, lead to the
conclusion that prejudice is thereby
caused.
42.2. Where procedural and/or
substantive provisions of law embody the
principles of natural justice, their
infraction per se does not lead to
invalidity of the orders passed. Here
again, prejudice must be caused to the
litigant, except in the case of a
mandatory provision of law which is
conceived not only in individual interest,
but also in public interest.
42.3. No prejudice is caused to the
person complaining of the breach of
natural justice where such person does
not dispute the case against him or it.
This can happen by reason of estoppel,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
13/15
acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-
challenge or non-denial or admission of
facts, in cases in which the Court finds
on facts that no real prejudice can
therefore be said to have been caused to
the person complaining of the breach of
natural justice.
42.4. In cases where facts can be stated
to be admitted or indisputable, and only
one conclusion is possible, the Court
does not pass futile orders of setting
aside or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must
be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of
the facts of a case, and not by the
authority who denies natural justice to a
person.
42.5. The “prejudice” exception must be
more than a mere apprehension or even a
reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It
should exist as a matter of fact, or be
based upon a definite inference of
likelihood of prejudice flowing from the
non-observance of natural justice.”
19. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has
three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is
required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected
adversely, must be granted an opportunity of being heard.
Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and
transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
14/15
apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or
speaking order.
20. In the present case, from the perusal of the
impugned order imposing penalty upon the petitioner dated
21.11.2024, it appears that the Mineral Development Officer,
Mines and Geology Department, Begusarai, proceeded to
impose penalty upon the petitioner without affording him an
opportunity of hearing and without issuing him a show-cause.
From the afore-quoted decisions, it is clear that an order having
civil consequences must be passed after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the affected party, in compliance with
the principles of natural justice, which is totally absent in the
present case. As such, the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 is
unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this
Court deems it appropriate that the violation of principle of
natural justice in the present case, warrants remand of the
present matter to the Mineral Development Officer, Mines and
Geology Department, Begusarai (respondent no.4), for passing
a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner in consonance with the principles of
natural justice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18425 of 2024 dt.15-05-2026
15/15
22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
21.11.2024 passed by the Mineral Development Officer, Mines
and Geology Department, Begusarai is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remitted to the Mineral Development
Officer, Mines and Geology Department, Begusarai for passing
a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
23. The writ petition is allowed to the above
extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 18.02.2026
Uploading Date 19.05.2026
Transmission Date N.A.
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.