Failure to ensure service of hearing notice violates natural justice, rendering the resulting order unsustainable.

The petitioner, a mining company, held a limestone mining lease over 20.719 hectares in District Satna, transferred to them in 2009

Mining operations could not commence due to pending environmental clearances and delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, leading the petitioner to seek an extension of time in 2018

On 09.12.2025, respondent No. 2 issued a notice proposing to declare the lease lapsed, fixing a hearing for 10.12.2025

However, the notice was dispatched only on 10.12.2025 and received by the petitioner on 11.12.2025

Despite this, respondent No. 1 proceeded ex parte and issued an order on 30.12.2025 declaring the lease lapsed

The petitioner challenged this order via writ petitions, alleging a violation of natural justice

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, declaring the mining lease as lapsed, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to lack of reasonable opportunity of hearing

2. Whether the respondent authorities' failure to ensure service of notice prior to the hearing date renders the subsequent ex parte proceedings and final order arbitrary and unconstitutional

The court primarily applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), to prevent arbitrary state action under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

The court emphasized that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must ensure effective service of notice before proceeding ex parte to satisfy the requirements of fairness and due process

The court observed that the material record, including postal tracking and certificates, confirmed the notice for the 10.12.2025 hearing was dispatched on the very same day and received by the petitioner on 11.12.2025

Consequently, the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings on the scheduled date

The court rejected the respondents' contention regarding a previous notice dated 02.12.2025, noting that the postal receipts provided by the State did not prove service and that the post office report indicated the relevant article was not booked

The court held that fixing a hearing and dispatching notice on the same day is a "clear demonstration" that no effective or reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded

The respondents' failure to verify service before proceeding ex parte constituted a gross violation of legal principles

The court held that the order was passed without offering a proper opportunity of hearing and was therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice

The matter was remanded back to the respondent authorities with a direction to pass a fresh order only after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner