In a significant ruling reinforcing the supremacy of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, quashed orders passed by the District Magistrate, Banda, and the State Government, which had cancelled the mining lease of M/s Maa Kaali Tyres, imposed a recovery of ₹5.79 crore, and blacklisted the firm for two years.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on March 19, 2025, in Writ-C No. 2119 of 2025 filed by M/s Maa Kaali Tyres through its Proprietor Dalpat Singh.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Shishir Chandra, Gaurav Mehrotra, and Utsav Mishra, while the State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) Shri Sisodiya.
Background of the Case
The dispute stemmed from earlier proceedings where an order dated April 26, 2021 passed by the Banda District Magistrate cancelling the petitioner’s mining lease and imposing penalties was quashed by the High Court in a judgment dated February 14, 2023 (in Writ-C No. 4229 of 2022). Following this, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on April 24, 2023, defending against fresh allegations.
However, the DM passed a new order on January 12, 2024, reaffirming the previously quashed decision — this time citing an old report dated March 19, 2021. The revisional authority, on January 27, 2025, upheld this action without independently applying its mind to the pleas raised by the petitioner.
Key Legal Issues
- Revival of Quashed Orders: Whether an order previously quashed by the High Court can be revived without fresh reasoning.
- Violation of Natural Justice: Whether the impugned orders were passed without properly considering the petitioner’s detailed reply.
- Jurisdiction of District Magistrate: Whether the DM had legal competence to take penal action under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
- Application of Mind: Whether the DM’s order reflected proper reasoning and specific application of legal provisions.
Court’s Observations
The Bench was scathing in its criticism of the DM’s approach. Key observations include:
“An order quashed by the High Court could have been revived though a fresh order containing a fresh decision could have been passed. This itself is objectionable and unacceptable.”
“A penal action such as the one at hand having civil consequences could not have been taken in such a manner which is not in accordance with the Principle of Natural Justice nor the letter and spirit of our earlier judgment dated 14.02.2023.”
The court further highlighted that:
- Many of the legal provisions cited in the impugned orders did not confer jurisdiction upon the DM.
- There was no reference to any delegation of authority by the State Government under Section 21 of the Act.
- The final part of the DM’s 13-page order, which contained the actual reasoning, was limited to just one and a half pages, lacking clarity and depth.
- Orders should clearly spell out “what has prevailed in the mind of the authority” and must be “lucid” and based on “proper application of mind.”
Final Judgment
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both the DM’s order dated January 12, 2024, and the Revisional Authority’s order dated January 27, 2025.
It remanded the matter back to the DM, Banda, to:
- Ascertain jurisdiction before passing any fresh order.
- Consider all relevant pleas raised in the reply dated March 19, 2024.
- Base the decision on law, supported with proper reasoning and citations of specific legal provisions invoked.
If the DM finds herself lacking jurisdiction, she has been directed to forward the case materials to the competent authority.
Court’s Advice to the DM
In a rare move, the High Court gave procedural advice to the DM:
“Ordinarily, facts should be stated in brief followed by pleas of the petitioner, discussion, findings and conclusions arrived at… she should mention the specific provision being invoked for specific penal or other action.”
“We hope she will keep this in mind in future.”
