Jharkhand High Court
Brahmaputra Metallics Limited Having ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 8 October, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2456 of 2020
Brahmaputra Metallics limited having its office at Village- Kamta, Block
Gola, District- Ramgarh and administrative office at Commerce Tower,
Main Road, Ranchi, represented through its Director namely Aarsh Sahu
...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G. 03/08.10.2020 The present case is taken up through video conferencing.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned letter no. 562/Khanan, Ramgarh dated 15.07.2020 issued by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no.4) by which a penalty of Rs.86,01,067/- has been imposed against the petitioner on the allegation of illegal transportation of coal, submits that the said penalty is not inconsonance with Rule-13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (in short "the Rules, 2017"). In fact, the respondent no. 4 has no jurisdiction to impose the impugned penalty which otherwise is also grossly disproportionate. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before issuing the impugned letter dated 15.07.2020 imposing the aforesaid penalty against the petitioner, it has not been given any opportunity of hearing to explain its case.
Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned A.C. to A.G., raises an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has efficacious/alternative remedy as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules, 2017.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to this Court that the petitioner has raised an issue with regard to jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 in imposing penalty while invoking the provisions of Rule-13 of the Rules, 2017 as well as that before imposing the penalty vide impugned letter dated 15.07.2020, the petitioner has not been provided any opportunity of hearing. Hence, I am of the view that a counter affidavit is required to be filed by the respondents in the present matter.
At the request of Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to learned A.G., the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Put up this case on 03.12.2020.
Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner for realization of the penalty in pursuance of the impugned letter no. 562/Khanan, Ramgarh dated 15.07.2020 issued by the respondent no. 4.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh