Patna High Court
Ravi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The penalty imposed without a show‑cause notice and hearing violates natural justice and is therefore quashed.
Summary
Petitioner Ravi Kumar was levied a penalty of Rs. 8,55,250 by the Mineral Development Officer, Nawada, without any show‑cause notice or hearing. The petitioner contended that this contravened the principles of natural justice. The High Court observed that the mining authorities had repeatedly been directed not to impose penalties without a hearing, yet they failed to comply. Consequently, the Court quashed the penalty and remitted the matter back to the officer for proper procedure. It also ordered the release of the seized truck (Regn. No. BR02T‑8753) on interim relief, subject to security and other conditions. The application for relief was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the imposition of a penalty without a show‑cause notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice
- Whether the seizure of the vehicle should be released pending proper adjudication
Subjects
- natural justice
- penalty
- show‑cause notice
- interim relief
- vehicle seizure
- mining law
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.40 of 2026
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Son of Vinod Yadav Resident of Village- Bhagwanpur, Police
Station- Ben, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada, Bihar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada, Bihar.
5. The Mines Inspector, Mines and Geology Department, Nawada, Bihar.
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Mines and Geology Department,
Nawada, Bihar.
7. The SHO, Nemdarganj Police Station, Nawada, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Mines Dept : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P., Mines
Ms.Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Fazle Karim, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Mining
Department.
2. The counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel
for the Mining Department is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from the letter no. 03.01.2026 issued by the Mineral
Development Officer, Nawada, he has imposed a penalty of Rs.
8,55,250/- on the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.40 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
penalty has been imposed without issuing any show-cause and
without hearing the petitioner.
5. This Court has been regularly directing the Mining
authorities to not impose penalty without giving proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties, but it appears that the
officers do not go through the orders passed by this Court and
are not following the law.
6. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the
impugned order which has been passed in complete violation of
principle of natural justice cannot be sustained and the penalty
of Rs. 8,55,250/- imposed by the authorities vide letter dated
03.01.2026, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to
the Mineral Development Officer, Nawada.
7. Since no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping
the vehicle seized, therefore, considering the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai
vs. State of Gujrat reported as 2002 (10) SCC 283, during
pendency of the matter before the concerned authority, the truck
bearing Registration No. BR02T-8753 and shall be released in
favour of the petitioner by way of interim relief with the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a security of Rs. 15
Patna High Court CWJC No.40 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
lakhs (not bank guarantee or fixed deposit) before the
concerned/ competent authority before whom the confiscation
proceeding is pending.
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish all the necessary
papers/documents of ownership before the concerned
competent authority.
(iii) The petitioner shall undertake, in writing, that
the vehicle, in question, shall neither be alienated nor be
transferred in favour of any third party during the pendency of
the proceeding and that the vehicles, in question, shall be
produced as and when called upon or required in the
proceeding or otherwise.
(iv). If any jurisdictional objection is taken by the
petitioner that shall also be considered by the authority
concerned. The petitioner will also co-operate with the
authorities till disposal.
8. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the
grounds of the writ petition before the respondent authorities
and all these grounds shall be considered after hearing the
petitioner and a detailed order shall be passed.
9. This application stands allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U
Checking your session…