Mining Lease | Consequential Order Cannot Go Beyond Realm Of Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that any order passed as a consequence of the show cause notice cannot go beyond what is alleged in the show cause notice. Actions to be taken against a person must be clearly stated in the show cause notice, it held.

While dealing with dispute regarding illegal mining, the bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the reason for not allowing the authority to travel beyond the realm of the show cause notice is that “the petitioner has to be given a chance to put up his case with regard to the said show cause notice.”

“ In the event, a particular case is made out in the show cause notice and the order passed subsequently is beyond the said show cause notice, the same would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner would not have been aware of the new grounds or new factual elements and could never have placed his case for the above before the authority concerned,” held the Court.

The Court placed specific reliance on The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and Others v. Kumari Chitra Srivastava and Others, wherein the Supreme Court observed

“Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price – a small price indeed – has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law.”

Factual Background

Based on some inspection report, notice was issued to the petitioner with respect to illegal excavation over Plot No.824 Kha. In reply, petitioner stated that he had mining lease with respect to Plot No.421 Ga area 0.506 hectare and he was working on the said plot alone. In the final order passed against the petitioner, Plot No.421 Ga was mentioned as the disputed land.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, counsel for petitioner submitted that if the show cause notice is defective then the consequential proceedings cannot stand. It was further contended that the different plots being mentioned in the show cause notice and the consequential order indicate that the authority is unclear about the subject matter of the dispute.

Counsel for respondent argued that the order was with respect to Plot No.421 Ga and there was no interference needed with the order.

High Court Verdict

The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others has held that

“107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.”

The bench headed by Justice Verma placed further reliance on Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Champdany Industries Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Shital International wherein the Apex Court has observed that the tax department cannot be permitted to go beyond what is stated in the show cause notice.

The Court held that “a show cause notice is required to provide details of the nature of the offence and the grounds on which the show cause notice has been issued. Furthermore, the order that is subsequently passed, based on the show cause notice, cannot go beyond the said show cause notice and cannot in any manner penalise the noticee on grounds that were not stated in the show cause notice.”

The Court held that the reason for not allowing the authorities to go beyond the show cause notice is that the person who is put to notice has an opportunity to respond to the allegations levelled against him. An order which goes beyond the show cause notice is violative of principles of natural justice as the person aggrieved cannot be aware of such new grounds and facts so as to defend himself.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the show cause notice and the consequential order as illegal mining over two different plots were mentioned in the documents.

Case Title: Ramlala v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 31059 of 2023]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 457

Click Here To Read/Download Order