Jammu & Kashmir High CourtM/S Choudhary Stone Crusher vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 May, 2021Author:Sanjeev KumarBench:Sanjeev KumarS. No. 151\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR\n                          AT JAMMU\n                      (Through virtual mode)\n\n                                         WP(C) No.936/2021\n                                         CM Nos.3909 & 3910/2021\n\nM/s Choudhary Stone Crusher                        .... Petitioner(s)\n                 Through: Mr. Parag Sharma, Advocate\n      Versus\nUnion Territory of J&K and others                          ......Respondent(s)\n\n                    Through: Mr. F.A.Natnoo, AAG\n\nCORAM:              Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge\n\n                                ORDERCM No.3910/2021This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time\nto deposit the court fee etc.\n      The application, for the reasons stated therein, is allowed. Let\ndeficiencies be made good within one week after the restrictions imposed\ndue to COVID 19 are withdrawn.WP(C) No.936/2021In this petition, the petitioner has called in question order dated\n27.04.2021 passed by District Mineral Officer, Geology and Mining\nDepartment, Jammu, whereby a fresh penalty of Rs.7,47,520/- has been\nimposed.The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that for\nthe same offence, the petitioner cannot be imposed penalty twice. It is\nsubmitted that with regard to the same omission/offence, a penalty of\nRs.21,56,000/- has already been imposed by the respondents, which is\nsubject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority.It is urged by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that\nassuming, though not admitting, that respondents were entitled in law to\nissue the order of fresh penalty on the basis of actual consumption of\nelectricity in the petitioner-Unit, yet no such order could have been passed2                           WP(C) No.936/2021without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The\npetitioner claims that he has been condemned unheard and the impugned\norder is violative ofArticle 14of the Constitution.Mr. F.A.Natnoo, appearing for the respondents, however, contradicts\nthis position and submits that the fresh penalty has been imposed on the\nbasis of fresh material. Mr. Ankur Sachdeva, District Mineral Officer,\nJammu, who was present along with Mr. Natnoo, was also heard in the\nmatter. He submits that the earlier penalty was imposed on the basis of the\nreport submitted by the committee constituted by the Divisional\nCommissioner, Jammu and the fresh penalty has been imposed on the basis\nof actual consumption of electricity by the petitioner- unit even during the\nperiod when the unit was sealed.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I\nam of the view that before imposing the fresh penalty, no show cause notice\nwas ever served upon the petitioner and prima facie the impugned order\nappears to have been issued in complete violation of the principles of natural\njustice.In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to the respondents in the main\npetition as well as CM seeking interim relief.Mr. F.A.Natnoo, AAG waives notice on behalf of the respondents. He\nseeks and is granted two weeks time to file objections.List on 25.05.2021.In the meanwhile, subject to objections and till next date of hearing,\nimpugned order dated 27.04.2021 shall remain stayed.(Sanjeev Kumar)\n                                                             Judge\n\nJAMMU\n05.05.2021\nVinod