Bombay High Court
Jai Gajanan Stone Crusher Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 9 April, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3685/2017
Jai Gajanan Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor/Partner Namdeo
Ananda Bhonde, Aged about 46 years,
Resident of Pimprideshmukh, Tq. Khamgaon,
District Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3686/2017
1. Firdos Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor Mohd. Sajit
Ab. Majid, Aged about 46 years,
Resident of Jalgaon Jamod Road, Ward No.1,
Nandura, Tq. Nandura, District Buldana..
2. Sunil Mahadeo Gire,
Aged 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Pimpri Deshmukh, Tq. Khamgaon,
District : Buldana. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3687/2017
Shrikrupa Stone Crusher,
through its Partner Avinash Madhukar
Tayde, Aged about 46 years,
Resident of Matoda, Post Khumgaon,
Tq. Nandura, District Buldana. PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 :::
WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 2 Common Judgment
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3688/2017
Shrikrushna Stone Crusher,
through its Partner Vinayak Pandurang Mukund,
Aged about 52 years, Resident of Mohta Plot,
Nandura, Tq. Nandura, District Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3689/2017
Bharat Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor Mohd.Fahim Mohd.
Ashraf, Aged about 49 years,
Resident of Bharat Weigh Bridge, Khamgaon, Road,
Nandura, Tq. Nandura, District Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3690/2017
Raj Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor Subhash Gokuldas Mohta,
Aged about 56 years, Resident of Shikshak
Colony, Tq. Nandura, District Buldana. PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 :::
WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 3 Common Judgment
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3691/2017
Durga Stone Crusher,
through its Partner Rajesh Panditrao Ekade,
Aged about 51 years, Resident of Ward No.2,
Ekade Layout, Nandura, Tq. Nandura,
District Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3692/2017
Baba Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor Ballabhdas Girdhardas
Mundhada, Aged about 56 years, Resident of At
undhada & Sons, Khamgaon Road, Nandura,
Tq. Nandura, District Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4930/2017
Anuja Stone Crusher, Proprietary Concern,
through its sole Proprietor Santosh Pralhadrao
Patil, Aged about 44 years, R/o Deshmukh Plot,
Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 :::
WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 4 Common Judgment
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4931/2017
Mahabali Stone Crusher, Proprietary Concern
through its sole Proprietor Santosh Purnaji
Kanherkar, Aged about 37 years, R/o Jawla
(Bujurg), Shegaon, Tah. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Mining Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Additional Collector, Buldana. RESPONDENTS
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, counsel for petitioner in WP Nos.3689/2017, 3690/2017
and 3692/2017.
Shri V. Bhise, counsel for petitioner in WP Nos.3685/2017 To 3688/2017 and
3691/2017.
Shri H.R. Gadhia, counsel for petitioner in WP Nos.4930/2017 and 4931/2017.
Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader, Ms S.S. Jachak, Mrs. K.R.
Deshpande, Mrs. M. Naik, Shri S.M. Ghodeswar and Shri A.M. Joshi, Assistant
Government Pleaders for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Since identical orders are challenged in all these writ petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 ::: WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 5 Common Judgment
2. A common grievance has been made in all these writ petitions that the Additional Collector has without granting any opportunity of hearing cancelled the license issued to the petitioners to operate the stone crushers.
3. Each petitioner was granted license for operating a stone crusher. On that basis, the petitioners were operating stone crushers for the period of that license. In all writ petitions except Writ Petition Nos.4930 of 2017 and 4931 of 2017, a show cause notice came to be issued to the respective petitioner therein on 31.03.2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why the license pertaining to crushing of stone should not be cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. After issuing show cause notice to the petitioners they had submitted their reply. However, without considering that reply and without granting any opportunity of hearing, the license in question has been cancelled. Since the civil rights of the petitioners are affected by such cancellation, it was incumbent upon the Authorities to have complied with the principles of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted. This was all the more necessary ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 ::: WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 6 Common Judgment since according to the petitioners there was no breach on their part in operating the respective licenses.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader and the Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondents have not been able to point out the grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. They have however relied upon the reply as filed to justify the impugned orders.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the petitioners were granted licenses under the relevant Rules. By grant of such licenses, a right to operate that license for the period stipulated accrued in petitioners' favour. If that right was to be taken away, the petitioners were required to be heard before passing any order. This was all the more necessary since the petitioners had filed detail replies to the show cause notices. The impugned orders also do not indicate reference to the replies as filed except for stating that the replies were not satisfactory. The reason for not accepting the stand as taken in the respective replies to the show cause notices has not been indicated. On this count, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 ::: WPs 3685TO3692,4930&4931/17 7 Common Judgment
7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Buldana cancelling the license of the petitioners in each writ petition is set aside. The Additional Collector shall give an opportunity of hearing to each petitioner and thereafter pass fresh orders in accordance with law. In cases where no show cause notices are issued, the authorities are free to issue such notices if according to them any action is proposed to be taken. The Writ Petitions are allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of. No costs.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:04:39 :::