RAMLALA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) On 31/5/2022, the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, based on some inspection report, issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner may not be punished for having excavated over Plot No.824 Kha. The petitioner replied to the said notice and submitted that he had a lease of mining work with regard to Plot No.421 Ga area 0.506 hectare and he also submitted that the petitioner was continuing with the mining work on the aforesaid plot alone. However, when final order dtd. 20/6/2022 was passed, it dealt with illegal mining over Plot No.421 Kha, which was definitely not the subject matter of the show cause notice dtd. 31/5/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the show cause notice was with regard to Plot No.824 Kha, the order ought to have been dealt with illegal mining over Plot No.824 Kha and no other plot. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others; 2011 (14) SCC 770 and submitted that if the show cause notice is defective then the consequential proceedings cannot stand. He further submits that if the show cause notice was with regard to some other plot and the punishment is being imposed with regard to some other plot then it would be deemed that the authority, which had issued the show cause notice, was not clear of the subject matter and, therefore, when there is no clarity in the show cause notice itself, the authority which has passed the impugned order could not have passed the same with regard to some other plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that when final order mentioned some other plot and the show cause notice mentioned some other plot then the entire proceedings were null and void.