Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 2
Less than two months after the state of Punjab was asked to be careful in future while terminating mining contracts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed Rs 50,000 costs after asserting that its word was caution was not paid heed to and the same mistake was committed again.
Making same mistake again
Word of caution has not really had its effect as subsequent thereto the same competent authority had proceeded to pass an order again in violation of the provisions of Rule 68, making the same mistake as was earlier committed. High Court
The admonition and direction by the Division Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Alok Jain came on a petition filed against the state and other respondents by M/s Prime Vision Industries Pvt. Ltd through senior counsel Gurminder Singh with advocate RPS Bara
The petitioner had challenged order dated September 23 passed by the Punjab Director-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Mines amp; Geology, whereby mining contract granted to the petitioner was summarily terminated in violation of Rule 68 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules. Non-compliance with the principle of natural justice was also alleged.
Gurminder Singh’s stand in the matter has all along been that an opportunity of hearing and filing a representation was required to be given to a contractor in accordance with Rule 68. The process was to be carried out after the receipt of reply to the initial show-cause notice issued by the director concerned, in case he was of the opinion that the mining licence issued to the contractor was to be cancelled.
As the case came up for hearing, Punjab Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the impugned order stood withdrawn vide order dated October 26, after realising the mistake with regard to the provisions of the statute not been complied with.
He contended that the matter may be taken as an aberration on the part of the officer concerned. He also assured that the same would not happen in future as the provisions of the statute would be complied with in letter and spirit.
The Bench asserted it was not inclined to accept the submission at face value as the court on earlier two occasions had clarified the position on Rule 68. Its mandate was also detailed and explained. The court had, in fact, clarified the position vide order dated September 15. It was also made clear that the official was required to be careful in future while passing such orders.
