Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36059 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vikram Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Karan Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the notice dated 28.08.2018 whereunder he has been directed to pay Rs. 4,72,230/- towards royalty and five times penalty thereon, on the ground that for the work carried out by him in the past under the work contracts, he had used the minerals, in respect of which he had submitted copy of the first bill of Form MM-11 for disbursement of payment. The further reason assigned is that the Public Accounts Committee has put an objection that the submission of MM-11 for getting the payment in respect of minerals used directly was illegal as they were liable to pay royalty on the minerals utilized. Further, since they have not paid royalty in time, they are liable to be visited with penalty as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an argument that the work contract that was awarded to him was completed long back in the year 2005-06 and payments were made and if any objection raised by Public Accounts Committee in the year 2018 resulting in some liability to be imposed upon the petitioner, the recovery in respect of the work done long back, more than a decade, he was liable to be put to show cause notice at least. He argues that financial liability, if imposed in terms of penalty, such an order without complying the principles of natural justice is wholly untenable.
We find merit in the arguments advanced by the counsel of the petitioner, as from the recital of the order dated 28.08.2018 it is certainly not deducible that any opportunity of hearing was offerd to him either in terms of notice or in terms of show cause notice for the amount to be charged as royalty and then penalty also for some transaction taken place more than a decade ago.
Learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that there is nothing in the impugned recovery order that may suggest that petitioners were put to notice before the order of recovery was passed.
In view of the above, the order impugned dated 28.08.2018, 11.09.2018 and 14.09.2018 are hereby quashed. However, we keep it open for the respondents to proceed afresh after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and giving him opportunity of hearing in the matter of payment claimed under the impugned order.
Writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the directions made herein above.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018/IrfanUddin