Patna High Court
Hari Construction And Associates Pvt ... vs The State Of Bihar on 4 November, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7887 of 2025
======================================================
Hari Construction and Associates Pvt Ltd a compnay incorporated under the
Companies Act, having it office at Keshawe, P.S. Barauni, District- Begusarai,
through its authorised representative Sanjeev Kumar, about 54 years (Male),
son of Rama Kant Chaudhary, Resident of Ward No.23, Road no. 1, Laxmi
Nagar, P.S. Town, Begusarai, Bihar 851101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Khagaria.
5. The Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office Khagaria.
6. The Deputy Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Railway Division
Sonpur.
7. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction (II), Railway Division Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Simran Kumari, Advocate
For the Railways : Ms. Parul Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Vikash Hansa, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-11-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Mining
Department.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the
following reliefs:
"i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025
2/11
the nature of certiorari for quashing letter no. 374
dated 26.06.2024 issued by Respondent Assistant
Director-cum-In charge Mineral Development
Officer, Khagaria, whereby and whereunder a
penalty of Rs. 6,40,18,250/- (Rupees Six Crore
Forty Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred and
Fifty only) has been levied upon the petitioner
under provisions of Bihar Minerals (Concession,
Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as
the "2019 Rules") for allegedly excavating
70543.50 cubic meter soil.
ii) During pendency of this writ application, this
Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to not
to take any other coercive steps against the
petitioner for recovery of the penalty amount of
Rs. 6,40,18,250/-
iii) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and
hold that letter no. 374 dated 26.06.2024 issued
by the Respondent Assistant Director-cum-In
charge Mineral Development Officer, Khagaria is
bad in the eyes of law since the same has been
issued in glaring violation of the principles of
natural justice as the petitioner has not been
afforded any show cause notice whatsoever to
controvert the allegations upon which the penalty
has been levied.
iv) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and
hold that the levy of penalty contained in letter no.
374 dated 26.06.2024 is in gross violation of the
maxim audi alteram partem as the petitioner has
been condemned unheard without an opportunity
to defend the charges against it.
v) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and
hold that the imposition of penalty upon the
petitioner is in violation of the 2019 Rules ?
vi) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and
hold that the levy of penalty contained in letter no.
374 dated 26.06.2024 is bad in the eyes of law as
the same has been levied without compliance with
Rule 59 of the 2019 Rules."
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed
by the Assistant Director-cum-Incharge Mineral Development
Officer, Khagaria by which penalty of Rs.6,40,18,250/- has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025
3/11
imposed upon the petitioner has been passed without affording
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted the brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present
writ is that the East Central Railway had floated a tender for
construction of sub-structure of Major Bridge No. 16 UP on
well foundation, earthwork, blanketing and boulder pitching in
approaches, transportation, erection, and launching of 61.0 m
span, open web Gerd and other associated works of major
bridge No.16 UP in connection with rebuilding of the aforesaid
Bridge No.16 UP between Khagaria and Umesh Nagar in
Sonpur division. The petitioner participated in the said tender
process and emerged as the lowest bidder consequent to which
the Letter of Award was issued on 05.10.2023 in favour of the
petitioner. After execution of the agreement, the petitioner in
January 2024 started the construction work of the railway bridge
as the terms of the tender and LoA.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that in order to meet the requirement of spoil
for earthwork, entered into agreement with nearby land owners
and agreed to pay charges to the land owner. Thereafter, the
petitioner periodically raised bill with the railways and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025
4/11
Railways deducted royalty charges from the bills of the
petitioner. The petitioner has also brought on record three bills
in order to substantiate this fact and it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the bills shall
reveal the quantity of earth used by the petitioner and the
amount of royalty deducted by the Railways from the bills of
the petitioner. The aforesaid deduction from the bills of the
petitioner was by virtue of Rule 57 of the 2019 Rules which
reads as follows:
"Seigniorage Fee from Government Projects.-
(1) All the Government Departments, particularly
Works Departments using any minor mineral for
their schemes or projects, shall deduct a
Seigniorage Fee from their suppliers or works
contractors of such minor minerals.
(2) Such Seigniorage Fee shall be at a flat rate of
10(ten) percent of the mineral value involved in
the estimate and shall be deducted by the Works
Department from their supplier/works contractors
and deposited with the Mining Officer of the
district.
Provided that the State Government may increase
or decrease the Seigniorage Fee from time to
time."
6. Adverting to Rule 57 of the 2019 Rules the
learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid Rules
contemplates that in cases where minerals is used in government
projects, it is the responsibility of the department to deduct the
royalty for the minerals and deposit the same with the mining
office, considering the above, the petitioner entered into
Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025
5/11
agreements with the land owners for utilising the earth from
their land and utilised the same in the railway project. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the
month of March 2024 the petitioner was asked by the District
Mining Office to obtain a quarrying permit for excavation of
earth/soil. In compliance thereto, the petitioner filed an
application for grant of quarrying permit for 79,088 cubic meter
of soil, further the petitioner also submitted a mining plan which
was approved by the department vide letter no. 02 dated
09.04.2024issued by the District Mining Officer, Khagaria.
Consequent thereto, the petitioner was granted a quarrying permit dated 13.04.2024 for 10,000 cubic meter of soil. The petitioner also paid Rs. 3,63,000/- to the respondent mining department.
7. Thereafter, when the petitioner went to the District Mining Office for issuance of permit for additional quantity, the officials of the District Mining Office, Khagaria refused to grant further permit. On the contrary the petitioner was handed over letter no. 374 dated 26.06.2024 issued by Respondent-Assistant Director-cum-In charge Mineral Development Officer, Khagaria, whereby a penalty of Rs. 6,40,18,250 /- had been imposed upon the petitioner under Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 6/11 provisions of 2019 Rules for allegedly excavating 70543.50 cubic meter soil from six sites at Mauza Pragna falling under Mufassil Police Station.
8. Adverting to the aforesaid letter imposing penalty, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, it is not stated therein as to in what manner the excavation is illegal i.e. whether the excavation is beyond the permissible area or in excess of the permitted quantity. It is only alleged that the petitioner has excavated 70,543.50 cubic meter soil. Further, neither the petitioner was intimated about any inspection nor the alleged inspection was conducted in his presence. Moreover, no inspection report was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner has not been issued any show cause prior to imposing the aforesaid penalty. Therefore the petitioner was not issued any show cause to rebut the allegations levelled against him.
9. Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the imposition of penalty of a huge amount to the tune of Rs. 6,40,18,250/- upon the petitioner is completely illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the 2019 Rules. It is emphasised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has basically been condemned unheard without a reasonable opportunity to meet the Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 7/11 allegations. It is settled proposition of law that no person can be condemned unheard. The impugned imposition of penalty thus fails miserably when tested on the touchstone of "audi alteram partem". Furthermore, it is submitted that since the department of Railways has already deducted the royalty for the earth/soil utilised by the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay any additional amount of royalty to the department of mines.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ms. Uma Associates vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3400 of 2023.
11. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 in which paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 reads as under:
"9. That it is further submitted that while conducting raids against illegal mining. transportation and storage under Khagaria district, Khagaria Muffassil P.S case no.- 175/2024 was registered. It is worth mentioning that Hari Construction is carrying out railway work between Umesh Nagar Railway Station and Budhi Gandak River, and the said contractor has deposited 50000 cubic meters of soil amounting to Rs. 18,15,000/- (eighteen lakh fifteen thousand rupees only) in the mining head, and the railway related contractors have Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 8/11 to deposit the mining royalty at the time of clearance of the bill, otherwise their bill is not cleared by the government.This makes it clear that the said amount has been deposited in the mining head office only after the raid the said amount was paid.
10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the persons present at the said place during the raid have been made to testify. In view of the work done by Hari Construction, an amount of Rs. 18,15,000/- (Eighteen lakh fifteen thousand rupees only) has been deposited in the mining head. A fine of Rs. 6,40,18,250/- (six crore forty lakh eighteen thousand two hundred fifty) has been imposed against the contractor/Petitioner, through letter no. 374 dated 26.06.2024, under the relevant sections of Bihar Minerals (Subsidy, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules-2019, as amended by Rules 2021 for causing revenue loss and the contractor has been directed to deposit the above amount at the earliest.
11. That it is humbly stated that in fact, the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Khagaria in complaint case no.- 421110123032406220, has duly heard the case and the answering respondents have also submitted their clarification contained in memo no.- 272 dated 15.04.2024 and memo no.- 292 dated 09.05.2024 and the DPGRO, Khagaria in his order dated 22.05.2024, has observed and held that the Petitioner is found to be liable to pay Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 9/11 the Rs. 6,40,18,250/- and if such amount is not paid by the Petitioner then notices be issued to the petitioner and the Petitioner shall be directed to make the payment."
12. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record.
13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order does not mention the date of inspection and there is no inspection report available on record and the same has not even been brought on record by way of counter affidavit. He further submits that the alleged inspection was not done in his presence i.e., the petitioner was never issued any notice before the inspection. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 by which the huge penalty of Rs. 6,40,18,250/- has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice i.e., the order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner.
14. This Court in the case of Uma Devi vs The State of Bihar (supra) in paragraph-8 has held as follows:
"8. On perusal of the said order, the Court does not find that either the inspection by the so called departmental team was carried out in presence of the petitioner, whether the copy of the inspection report was provided to the petitioner or that proper opportunity to show-cause was issued to the petitioner prior to Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 10/11 passing the order of penalty. In view of these facts, in the opinion of the Court the order of penalty dated 24.2.2023 issued under the signature of the Mineral Development Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram, is not sustainable and is hereby quashed, with liberty to the respondents that if so advised, they will be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law."
15. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely, must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order.
16. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner without issuing show cause notice and not affording them an opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained. Furthermore, since the impugned order has been passed on the basis of an alleged inspection about which no record is available and no date is mentioned and considering the complete violation of the principles of natural justice before passing the penalty order, this application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
17. The impugned order dated 26.06.2024 issued by Respondent Assistant Director-cum-In charge Mineral Patna High Court CWJC No.7887 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 11/11 Development Officer, Khagaria, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondent authority to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law if so advised from the stage of inspection i.e. after conducting a fresh inspection in presence of the petitioner with advance notice to the petitioner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.11.2025
Transmission Date N/A