Mines Commissioner possesses independent supervisory power under Rule 7(c) to review orders of any subordinate mining officer.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, was allotted the Khijarsarai sand ghat for mining.

In 2023, the Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited (BSMCL) imposed a penalty of ₹19.35 Crores for illegal mining outside the allotted area.

This was quashed by the High Court in CWJC No. 8436/2023 due to a violation of natural justice, granting liberty to proceed afresh.

Upon remand, the Mineral Development Officer (MDO) conducted a fresh inspection and reduced the penalty to ₹6,81,494/-, which the petitioner paid.

Subsequently, the Mines Commissioner initiated "Revision Case No. 01/2024" suo motu, questioning the drastic reduction in penalty.

Following a third inspection by a committee, the Commissioner restored the original penalty of ₹19,35,22,820/- via order dated 24.02.2025.

The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to initiate such a revision.

1. Whether the Mines Commissioner has the jurisdiction under Rule 7(c) of the 2019 Rules to suo motu revise an order passed by a Mineral Development Officer, independent of the revisional powers under Rule 68

2. Whether the initiation of the revision was barred by the fact that the petitioner had already deposited the revised penalty

3. Whether the order dated 24.02.2025 was legally sustainable given that the supporting inspection was conducted without notice to the petitioner

The Court applied Rule 7(c) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019, which grants the Mines Commissioner supervisory power to suo motu examine any proceeding of a subordinate officer if the order is "erroneous" or "prejudicial to the interest of revenue".

It contrasted this with Rule 68, which governs formal "Revisions" primarily against orders of the Collector.

The Court also relied on the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and the precedent in B.S. Sheshagiri Setty v. State of Karnataka [(2016) 2 SCC 123] regarding the exercise of discretionary power within a reasonable time.

The Court harmonized Rules 7(c) and 68, holding they are independent streams of power.

Rule 7(c) is a broad supervisory power found under "Establishment and Control," allowing the Commissioner to correct errors by any subordinate authority (including MDOs) to protect state revenue.

Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision to investigate the 99% reduction in penalty was within his jurisdiction.

However, the Court found a fatal procedural flaw: the Joint Committee’s inspection (dated 13.12.2024), which formed the sole basis for the ₹19.35 Crore penalty, was conducted behind the petitioner’s back.

This violated the principles of natural justice and the express requirement in Rule 7(c) to afford the party an "opportunity of being heard".

The specific order dated 24.02.2025 was vitiated by the failure to include the petitioner in the inspection process.

The writ petition was allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalty of ₹19,35,22,820/-.

The matter was remitted to the Mines Commissioner to conduct a fresh inspection in the presence of the petitioner and pass a speaking order after a fair hearing.