M/S Radhey Radhey Enterprises v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25010 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Radhey Radhey Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbrat Mukherjee Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.

¶1It has been submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the order which has been passed today by this Court in Writ - C No. 25003 of 2023 (Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in this case also by an order of the Court dated 8.8.2023 the petitioner had to submit its reply to the show cause notice. He submits that when the order was passed the petitioner had approached the District Magistrate on 14.8.2023 to give its reply but on that date the reply was not accepted and in fact the petitioner was handed over the impugned order dated 14.8.2023 by which penalty was imposed and the same was adjusted with the security amount deposited earlier by the petitioner.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry as was conducted by the District Magistrate was not at all a valid one as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶4Learned Standing Counsel in this case also, supported the order passed by the District Magistrate and submitted that even if the reply of the petitioner was not considered, the order was absolutely correct and should be kept intact.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the view that not only have the principles of natural justice been violated but also the order dated 8.8.2023 of this Court was disregarded.

¶6Under such circumstances, the order dated 14.8.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.

¶7The petitioner may now submit his reply afresh within a period of one week and, thereafter, it be provided a personal hearing. The District Magistrate, may after considering the reply of the petitioner, within the next one month adjudicate the issues as had been raised in the show cause notice.

¶8It is, however, made clear that while considering the reply of the petitioner, i.e. at the time of enquiring into the allegations made in the show cause notice, the principles as have laid down in 2017 (1) ADJ 240 : Ranveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and 7 others shall be followed in their entirety. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 PK (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad