-
by sayum
13 April 2026 9:57 AM
On October 8, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court set aside a penalty order imposed on Smt. Somoti, a mining leaseholder, for alleged illegal excavation. The Court ruled that the penalty was issued in a non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the Mining Department for reconsideration after providing a fair hearing.
Smt. Somoti, who held a mining lease for masonry stone in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, was accused of excavating beyond her allocated area. Following an inspection, a penalty of Rs. 31,50,840 was imposed in February 2013. Despite appealing, her challenges were dismissed, leading to the present writ petition.
The petitioner argued that the penalty order was a non-speaking one, as her detailed reply to the notice was not addressed. The lack of reasoning in the decision violated the principles of natural justice and transparency.
The Court emphasized that any quasi-judicial authority must provide reasoned orders, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010). The Court noted that the petitioner's reply to the notice was disregarded without proper examination, and the penalty order merely labeled her response as unsatisfactory without elaboration.
The Court held that issuing a penalty order without providing clear reasons is a violation of natural justice. The decision-making process must be transparent and based on an objective evaluation of the facts and submissions.
The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Mining Department to reconsider the matter after granting the petitioner a fair hearing.
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in quasi-judicial decisions. The case was remitted for a fresh decision, ensuring that the petitioner’s response is duly considered.
Order Date: October 8, 2024
Smt. Somoti vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..
