A mining penalty cannot be imposed without notice specifying the alleged quantity and proposed penalty.

The District Collector’s order dated 28 August 2026 fastened liability on the petitioner, another landowner and a representative of M/s APM Minerals for alleged unauthorised removal of quartz and feldspar from land including Survey No. 6/1B.

The petitioner maintained that he had permitted excavation only to dig a well and that APM Minerals removed the minerals.

After an inquiry notice dated 17 August 2026 and an inquiry at which the petitioner allegedly admitted permitting the removal, the Collector quantified the minerals and imposed a penalty.

The petitioner challenged the order, contending that he had received only a summons to attend the inquiry, not a show-cause notice specifying the findings, quantity and proposed penalty.

The order identified an appeal remedy before the Director of Geology and Mining.

1. Whether the inquiry notice and hearing provided the petitioner adequate notice of the findings, mineral quantities and proposed penalty before liability was imposed.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere despite the alternative appeal remedy, where the petitioner alleged a procedural deficiency in the notice preceding the penalty order.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, requiring that a person facing liability be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the specific findings and proposed consequences.

A summons to attend an inquiry, even if it outlines allegations, is not necessarily a post-inquiry show-cause notice identifying the findings, quantified mineral removal and proposed penalty.

The Court also considered the availability of an alternative statutory appeal, but cited no statute, precedent or specific legal test for the alternative-remedy doctrine in its reasoning.

The Court found that substantial quantities of minerals had been removed and did not take exception to the respondents’ action in addressing the alleged extraction.

However, the notice dated 17 August 2026 was, in substance, a summons to attend an inquiry and could not be treated as a show-cause notice issued after findings had been made.

Although the petitioner was said to have admitted permitting APM Minerals to remove the minerals, the Court held that a notice specifying the quantified removal and proposed penalty was still required.

It therefore considered it appropriate to address the procedural deficiency notwithstanding the alternative appeal remedy.

It directed that the Collector’s order dated 28 August 2026 be treated as a show-cause notice and that the petitioner and the other persons concerned be allowed to submit explanations within two weeks of receiving the web copy of the judgment.

The District Collector was directed to pass fresh orders within three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law; the other concerned persons were also to be informed and their explanations called for.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.