TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that on 05.02.1999, opp. party no.2 Smt. Indrani Patnaik was granted mining lease for a period of 30 years, i.e., from 05.02.1999 to 04.02.2029. On the allegation of certain illegal mining having been carried on by opp. party no.2, the State Government passed an order dated 25.11.2010, directing opp. party no.2 to make payment of an amount of Rs. 11,31,72,22,440/-, and further directed to make good or remedy the breach of conditions, as the case may be, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the communication dated 25.11.2010. The said communication begins with the words take notice, but in the operative portion of the said communication, the following directions had been issued: 5. I am directed to hereby notice you under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 21 of M&M(D&R) Act, 1957) to make payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,31,72,22,440.00 and the under the provision of Rule 27(5) of MC Rules, 20160 to make good or remedy the breach of conditions as the case may be within sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the mining lease will be determined and the whole of security deposit forfeited. 3. Challenging the said order, opp. par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-rule (1), the State Government shall give notice to the lessee requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice and if the royalty or dead rent is not paid or the breach is not remedied within the said period, the State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceedings that may be taken against him, determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-State of Odisha primarily is, that the communication dated 25.11.2010 was a notice to opp. party no.2 to show cause. A perusal of the communication dated 25.11.2010 in totality, as well as the operative portion, would make it clear that there was no opportunity given to opp. party no.2 to show cause, as by the said order the State Government had come to a final determination, that an amount as specified therein was due to be paid by opp. party no.2 under Section 21(5) of the Act 1957 and further a final determination with regard to breach of conditions by opp. party no.2 had also been made, and a direction was issued to make good or remedy the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner filing reply to the communication dated 25.11.2010 could not have preferred revision under Section 30 of the Act, 1957 and more so, the revisional authority could not have exercised the powers instead of relegating the petitioner to participate in the proceedings by filing its reply to the said notice. Thereby, the revisional authority has committed gross error by entertaining such revision instead of remitting the matter back to the authority concerned for just and proper adjudication. On perusal of the facts of the said case, it appears that the mining lease was terminated for breach of terms, but without affording an opportunity of hearing and applying the principle of natural justice, the High Court, instead of remitting the matter to State Government straightway set aside termination of lease. The apex Court held that it is not proper. But the factual matrix of the case in hand is totally different from that of the case which has been cited before this Court as mentioned supra for consideration and as such, the same is distinguishable. 13. Similarly, reliance has been placed on Karnataka Rare Earth and another v. Senior Geologist, Dept. of Mines and Geology and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justice, universal justice, rational justice and fair play in action. The rules of natural justice have been summarised in one word i.e. fairness. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. 15. In Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. V. Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258, the Apex Court held that the golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more- but nothing less. Similar view has also been taken in Competition Commission of India v. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744, Haryana Financial Corpn. V. Kailash Chandra, (2008) 9 SCC 31, Sahara India (Firm) (I) v. CIT, (2008) 14 SCC 151 and other plethora of cases. 16. No provision is found in any statute requiring observance of the principles of natural justice by adjudicating authorities. The question then arises whether the adjudicating authority is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. In Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Edn.) de Smith said that whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the present context it appears that the communication dated 25.11.2010 directing to make payment of the amount determined is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 19. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the Revisional Authority ought not to have entered into the merits of the case and given its finding as to whether opp. party no.2 was liable to make payment of the amount determined by the said order dated 25.11.2010 under Section 21(5) of the Act 1957, but should have remanded the matter to the State Government to give an opportunity to the opposite party no.2 to show cause, and then pass its final order. It is not disputed that in the revision petition filed before the Revisional Authority, opp. party no.2 had taken all the grounds on merits and filed necessary documents. It is also not disputed that though the petitioner did not give para-wise reply to the averments made in the revision petition, but in its response filed on 22.07.2011, the petitioner had, in fact, taken its objections on merits of the case. It is also not disputed that the records pertaining to the case were placed before, and perused by, the Revisional....