TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 25.2.2010 was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for the operation of mining activities over the aforesaid leased land for the period from 21.2.2010 to 20.2.2020 i.e. for ten years. Prior to grant of lease to the petitioner, required statutory clearances including the clearance from the Forest Department were obtained which would be evident from letter No. 2407 dated 22.8.2001 and letter No. 3601 dated 17.11.2003 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Forest Division, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 5) wherein it was clearly stated inter alia that the leased land of the petitioner is not a forest land. However, vide letter contained in memo No. 73 dated 12.1.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the petitioner was issued notice informing inter alia that as per the Divisional Records, the leased land of the petitioner falls under the notified forest and pursuant to the said notice, hearing was fixed before the court of respondent No. 2 on 20.1.2016 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner appeared, but no proceeding was taken up on the said date by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner as contained in memo No. 334 dated 5.3.2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Per contra, learned A.C. to A.G. submits that two counter affidavits have been filed i.e. by the respondents. It is further submitted that the petitioner was carrying out the business of stone quarry over the protected forest which could not have been allowed to be continued being in violation of the forest laws. As soon as the respondents came to know that the leased land was notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, vide notification dated 2.1.1953, immediate steps were taken for stopping the mining activities and for terminating the mining lease of the petitioner for the remaining period. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that pursuant to issuance of notice dated 12.1.2016, the petitioner did not appear before the respondent authorities. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has primarily challenged the action of the respondents including the impugned letter/order contained in memo No. 734 dated 27.4.2016 on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice. The petitioner appears to have filed its objection before the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak case that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of, India also the application of principle of natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of notice and giving of hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. vs. Suvarna Board Mills, this aspect was explained in the following manner: (SCC p. 568, para 3) "3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a straitjacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to be seen is that ....