Patna High Court
M/s Upendra Nikhil High Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order dated 05.11.2025 is quashed and set aside for violation of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, Upendra Nikhil High Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd., sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 05.11.2025 issued by the Mineral Development Officer, Aurangabad, which rejected its application to reopen a user ID for generating transport e‑challans for sand stock, allegedly without any hearing. The petitioner also prayed for a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with the movement of sand for which royalty had been paid. The State argued that the representation was considered and no hearing was required. The Court held that the principles of natural justice require a hearing before an adverse order is passed. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, the matter remitted to the officer to pass a fresh order after hearing, and the sand stock was protected from disturbance.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 05.11.2025 passed without hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the order can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain interference with the sand stock.
Subjects
- natural justice
- certiorari
- mandamus
- mineral development
- sand stock
- royalty
- environmental law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18948 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Upendra Nikhil High Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd. having its registered
office at Fazalganj, Kanserwa, Infront of D.M. Colony Old G.T. Road,
Sasaram, Dist.- Rohtas, Bihar - 821115, through its Director namely Upendra
Singh, Male-aged about 53 years, Son of Late Kailash Singh, R/O Near Devi
Temple, Pansa, Palamu, District-Palamu (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna.
4. The District Mining Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, District -
Aurangabad.
5. The Regional Officer, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, District -
Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr.Rajnikant, Advocate
Mr. Masoom Raza, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (16)
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Ms. Kalpana, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the BSPCB : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the
following reliefs:
“i. For issuance of writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.18948 of 2025(4) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
05.11.2025 issued under the signature of Mineral
Development Officer, Aurangabad bearing Letter
no.1581 dated 05.11.2025 (Annexure P8),
whereby and whereunder, the application filed by
the Petitioner to issue/reopen the Petitioner's
User ID 033199182001 to enable generation of
transport challans/e-challans for dispatch and
sale of the balance stocked sand from the
Petitioner's stock-hold area at Aurangabad, Sone
Balukhand-23A has been rejected arbitrarily and
without granting any opportunity of hearing.
ii. For issuance of writ in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to
interfere with the movement of stock of sand for
which the Petitioner has already paid the royalty
and the Sand stock belongs to the Petitioner
exclusively.”
3. The limited contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the order dated 05.11.2025 has been passed by
the respondent no. 4 without hearing the petitioner and without
considering the representation of the petitioner which is against
the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel for the Mining Department has
supported the impugned order and has submitted that the
representation of the petitioner was considered and there is no
requirement of hearing the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions of the parties.
6. When an order is being passed against the
petitioner, the basic requirement of principles of natural justice
is that the petitioner should have been heard and his contention
Patna High Court CWJC No.18948 of 2025(4) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
should have been considered.
7. In these circumstances, this application is allowed.
8. Consequently, the impugned order dated
05.11.2025 passed by the Mineral Development Officer,
Aurangabad bearing Letter no.1581, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
9. The matter is remitted back to respondent no. 4 for
passing a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and considering
the contentions of the petitioner within 15 days of appearance of
the petitioner before the respondent no. 4.
10. In the meantime, the stock in question shall not be
disturbed i.e., no third party right shall be created by the
respondents.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U
Checking your session…