Administrative order imposing penalty for illegal mining without notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a registered Government Contractor, was transporting stone chips for road maintenance work under a five-year contract with the Rural Works Department.

On October 17, 2024, the Mines Inspector seized his trucks (BR09GB–6708 and BR09GB-6709) alleging violations of the Bihar Mineral Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage Rules, 2019.

The petitioner claimed he possessed valid invoices and transit challans (Form-D).

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Mineral Development Officer, Begusarai, issued Letter No. 1005 dated November 21, 2024, imposing a penalty of ₹16,95,626/- without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting a hearing.

1. Whether the imposition of a high-value monetary penalty without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the high court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the 2019 Rules.

The Court applied the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard) as a fundamental facet of Administrative Law.

Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. (2025) 7 SCC 545 establishes that any administrative action entailing "civil consequences" must comply with natural justice.

S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 states that the non-observance of natural justice is itself a prejudice.

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE (2015) 8 SCC 519 affirms that authorities cannot bypass notice requirements on the assumption that hearing would serve no purpose.

The Court observed that while the State argued the petitioner should have pursued statutory compounding or appeals under the 2019 Rules, the Mineral Development Officer had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when imposing the penalty.

The Court found that the impugned order dated November 21, 2024, was passed while the matter was already sub-judice (in seisin) before the High Court.

The records indicated that the respondent authority failed to issue a show-cause notice or grant a personal hearing before quantifying the ₹16,95,626/- penalty.

The Court reasoned that since the order had direct "civil consequences" against the petitioner, the total absence of a fair and transparent procedure rendered the order unsustainable, regardless of the disputed facts regarding the validity of the transit challans.

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 21, 2024 and remitted the matter as the writ petition was allowed.

The matter was remitted to the Mineral Development Officer, Begusarai (Respondent No. 4), with a direction to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order only after providing the petitioner with a show-cause notice and a fair opportunity for a hearing.