Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raju Leeladhar Sawwalakhe, a businessman involved in sand excavation for about 20 years, participated in an auction of sand ghats conducted by the Collector, Yavatmal in January 2014. His bid for four sand ghats at Mahagaon was accepted on 9.1.2014, and he deposited 20% of the bid amount on the same day. According to the prescribed procedure, the petitioner was to deposit the balance amount upon notice from the Collector after environmental clearance certificates were issued. The petitioner claimed he never received any notice until 24.2.2014, when he was asked to deposit the balance by the next day, failing which the bid would be cancelled. The petitioner could not deposit the amount in time, leading to cancellation. However, the Additional Commissioner passed an order on 22.4.2016 in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the Collector filed a review application before the Divisional Commissioner, who allowed it on 9.2.2018, setting aside the earlier order and blacklisting the petitioner from future auctions, also directing him to deposit the difference between his bid and the final bid from reauction. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The court found that the Divisional Commissioner had allowed the review without issuing any notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the petitioner had a valid explanation for the delay in deposit. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and restored the earlier order dated 22.4.2016, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Review Without Notice - The Divisional Commissioner allowed a review application filed by the Collector and set aside an earlier order in favour of the petitioner, without issuing notice to the petitioner. Held that such an order violates principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard before the adverse order was passed. (Paras 3-5) B) Mining Law - Sand Ghat Auction - Blacklisting - Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction Rules, 2013 - The petitioner's bid for sand ghats was accepted, but he was not given adequate time to deposit the balance amount. The subsequent blacklisting order was based on a review that ignored the petitioner's explanation. Held that the impugned order cannot be sustained. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Commissioner could review an earlier order in favour of the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing, and whether the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner is sustainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.2.2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner is quashed and set aside. The earlier order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner is restored. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Review Power
- Blacklisting
- Sand Ghat Auction
- Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction Rules
- 2013
