Orissa High Court
WP(C)/35450/2025 of M/S JAGANNATH STONE CRUSHER, BALESWAR Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 19 May 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35450 of 2025 M/s. Jagannath Stone Crusher, Baleswar …. Petitioner Ms. Babita Kumar Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, Additional Government Advocate CORAM:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35450 of 2025
M/s. Jagannath Stone Crusher,
Baleswar
….
Petitioner
Ms. Babita Kumar Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
19.05.2026
01.
1. The matter is taken up through virtual mode.
2. The challenge is made to demand notice dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Mining Officer, Balasore demanding a sum of Rs.6,45,450/- on account of stacking of the boulders at the crusher site, which is not corroborated with any valid document. The said demand notice revealed that the Joint Inspection was done by the Tahasildar, Khaira and Junior Mining Officer, Khaira which led to an impression that approximately 300 cum of the boulders were found stacked at the said site.
3. The petitioner contends that no notice of the inspection was ever served upon him nor any opportunity of hearing or to give an explanation was offered before the said demand notice was imposed upon the petitioner.
4. Though the tenet of the said demand notice reflects that the requisite documents were sought for, which could not be produced, according to the petitioner, he was neither present at the time of the inspection nor was any such requisition made.
5. Once the imposition is made demanding the penalty as well as the other components, it is expected that the authorities must give a reasonable opportunity to the person upon whom such imposition is made before it takes a final decision in this regard.
6. We do not find any documents corroborating that the inspection was done in presence of the petitioner, nor do we find any notice in the form of show cause was ever issued before the authorities jumped to the conclusion.
7. The non-denial of adequate opportunity to explain the violation is opposed to the ethos of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even it is against the principles of natural justice as the person must be given an adequate opportunity to explain such alleged violation. Solely on the ground that the demand is violative of the principles of the natural justice, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. The authorities are directed to issue a notice seeking an explanation from the petitioner, which shall not extend beyond 15 days from the date of this order.
9. The petitioner shall give an explanation in terms of the said notice within the time stipulated therein and shall not indulge in unnecessary prolongation thereof. After the explanation is filed, the
authorities shall take a decision by recording a proper reason in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-May-2026 16:33:52 Signature Not Verified