INDER SINGH NIHAL SINGH Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 259-D of 1961, 273-D of 1961 and 32 other connected petitions.

(2.) It is necessary to state the facts in two petitions only, namely, Civil Writs No. 259-D/1961 and 273-D of 1981. The petitioner, Inder Singh, has been carrying on quarry business in Delhi and claims to have been quarrying stone for the last several years. Respondent No. 2, the Collector of Mines and Quarries, used to issue a permit in Form M. 5 under the Delhi Minor Minerals Rules of 1938 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). There was certain land on Anand Parbat which belonged to the Ramjas College Society and the petitioner claims to be the lessee of the Society in respect of a portion of the land for the specific purpose of quarrying stone. The permit to quarry stone was renewed last up to 30th June 1957. When he applied for further renewal, that was refused. In the year 1957 he instituted a suit in tha Civil Courts against respondent No. 2 and the Union of India for a declaration and perpetual Injunction, The relief sought was that he might be allowed to continue the quarrying of stone on payment of royalty under the Rules. During the pendency of the civil suit an interim injunction was granted by the trial Court and by virtue of that injunction the petitioner continued the quarrying for which he paid royalty from time to lime under the Rules which was accepted by the respondents. While the temporary injunction was in force, respondent No. 2 held that the quarrying work without permit was illegal and imposed penalty on the petitioner and other persons. The orders imposing the penalty were challenged by means of an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act in which a decision was given by Mr. A.D. Pandit, who was the Chief Commissioner, on 14th October 1958. He held that owing to the injunction issued by the court quarrying was legal and was being carried on under the authority of the Court and, therefore, no penalty could b8 levied and the petitioner was liable to pay only the amount of royalty which had been assessed. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner. He filed an appeal against that decision which also was decided against him. Ultimately a second appeal was preferred to this Court, During the pendency of all these appeals an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the petitioner by virtue of which he continued quarrying alone and paid royalty. Tile appeal was dismissed by this Court on 26th September 1960. Thereupon the petitioner stopped quarrying work altogether.

(3.) It is urged in the petition that royalty subsequent to 1st June 1960 up to 26th September 1960 was to be assessed and charged by respondent No. 2 from the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and stated that he was prepared to pay the royalty for the aforesaid period under the Rules. However, without giving any show-cause notice and without hearing him, respondent No. 2 is alleged to have passed certain orders directing the petitioner to pay royalty and penalty from 1st May 1960 to 31st August 1960. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Chief Commissioner which was disposed of by Shri Bhagwan Sahal on 27th June 1961. The appeal was dismissed. That is how the petitioner had to file the present writ petition in which the orders of the respondents have been impugned in so far as the penalty has been ordered to be levied.