TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>District Magistrate's illegal mining punishment order quashed for addressing wrong plot number in final decision</h1> <h3>Ramlala Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others.</h3> The Allahabad HC quashed a District Magistrate's order regarding illegal mining punishment due to fundamental procedural errors. The show cause notice ... Illegal mining - Punishment for having excavated over Plot No. 824 Kha - HELD THAT:- In the show cause notice dated 31.5.2022, the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra had directed the petitioner to show cause with regard to the illegal mining over Plot No. 824 Kha but when the order impugned was passed we find that it is with regard to Plot No. 421Kha. It is also found that the plot, which was mentioned in the show cause notice, had no bearing with the order impugned in the instant writ petition. In the light of above, it is crystal clear that not only is show cause notice badly drafted and incomplete but also the order passed subsequently is inherently misconceived going way beyond the show cause notice issued. Ergo, show cause notice dated 31.05.2022 and the order dated 20.6.2022 are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Issues involved: Show cause notice discrepancy leading to illegal mining punishment on wrong plot.Summary:The High Court heard the petitioner's counsel and the Chief Standing Counsel for the State regarding a show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, related to illegal mining over Plot No. 824 Kha. The petitioner argued that the final order dealt with illegal mining over Plot No. 421 Kha, which was not the subject matter of the show cause notice. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner contended that if the show cause notice is defective, the consequential proceedings cannot stand. The Chief Standing Counsel argued that the order was correctly passed concerning Plot No. 421 Kha, as the petitioner participated in the proceedings and provided explanations.The petitioner relied on various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of the grounds mentioned in the show cause notice and the limitations on authorities to go beyond the notice in subsequent orders. The Court noted that the show cause notice was for Plot No. 824 Kha but the order was passed for Plot No. 421 Kha, indicating a discrepancy. Consequently, the Court quashed the show cause notice and the order, stating that they were inherently misconceived and went beyond the scope of the notice. The District Magistrate was given the option to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed based on the discrepancies between the show cause notice and the subsequent order, leading to the quashing of both documents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
