M/S. Haryana Mining Company vs State Of Haryana

before the Appellate Authority, who, on being

questioned, had replied that there was no other

approach to the area alleged to be under illegal mining

except through the area leased to the Appellant. The

High Court was of the opinion that the scope of judicial

review of orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities is

limited and findings of fact cannot be interfered with.

7. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the

Termination Order suffers from complete non-application

of mind. Even the Appellate Authority has not

considered the contention of the Appellant that there is

absolutely no material to implicate the Appellant for

undertaking illegal mining operations outside the leased

area. On the other hand, he argued that the reports

6 placed on record were totally inconclusive and there are

no findings recorded in any demarcation report that the

Appellant was responsible for any illegal mining outside

the leased area. Our attention was drawn to the ADC

Report, which records that the representative of the

Sarpanch, Village Khudana had, in the enquiry

proceeding on 12.02.2019, made a statement to the

effect that the Appellant was carrying out mining in its

allocated area whereas M/s Hari Har Mining Company

was carrying out illegal mining in Garhi area. Further,

the ADC Report notes that in the enquiry proceeding on

25.02.2019, the Sarpanch, Village Khudana deposed that

he had filed the complaint on the basis of complaints

moved by residents of the village and he did not have

any sound proof on the allegation. The learned Senior

Counsel submitted that the High Court committed a

serious error in not allowing the writ petition, in spite of

absence of any evidence of illegal mining on the part of

the Appellant.

8. Ms. Noopur Singhal, learned counsel appearing for

the Respondent, supported the findings recorded by the

7 High Court in the impugned judgment by arguing that

there were several complaints preferred by villagers

pertaining to illegal mining by the Appellant outside the

leased area. The report dated 04.02.2019 of the Mining

Officer, Narnaul would show that the Appellant is guilty

of illegal mining. She further argued that the Appellant

cannot shift his liability to M/s Hari Har Mining Company,

who had completely stopped mining operations in that

period. As the Termination Order was passed after

giving sufficient opportunity to the Appellant and also

after taking into account the material on record, the High

Court was justified in not interfering with the said orders.

9. We note that the Termination Order refers to a

demarcation report of 17.12.2018 for the purpose of

reaching the conclusion that the Appellant was indulging

in illegal mining. A perusal of the said demarcation

report would show that there was nothing mentioned

therein about illegal mining carried out by the Appellant.

According to the said report dated 17.12.2018, the Field

Kanungo conducted the demarcation proceedings in the

presence of the members of the Gram Panchayat and

8 after perusing the revenue records. The Surveyor, with

the help of the Differential Global Positioning System

machine, verified the marking stones and flags at each

corner and side and found them to be correct. The ADC

Report, referred to in the Termination Order, concludes

that it could not ascertain as to who was involved in the

illegal mining in Khasra Nos. 366 and 367. There is also

a reference in the Termination Order to a memo dated

20.11.2019 of the Mining Officer, Narnaul, by which a

fresh demarcation report dated 15.11.2019 was sent. In

the said demarcation report, it has been categorically

stated that “no fresh mining was found beyond the

pillar”. This has also been recorded in the Termination

Order. There is no other reference to either a

demarcation report or any other enquiry report of any

officer from the Department of Mines and Geology or the

Department of Forest, that would indicate any illegal

mining conducted by the Appellant beyond the leased

area.

10. It is relevant to refer to a report submitted by the

Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Regional Division, Forest

9 Complex, Mahendargarh on 15.10.2019 to the Forest

Conservator, Gurugram. An enquiry was conducted by

the DFO pursuant to a complaint made against the

Appellant to the National Green Tribunal, which directed

the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest of Haryana to

look into the matter and take appropriate action, by an

order dated 16.04.2019. In the said report, the DFO held

that the alleged mining was not proved. After referring

to the ADC Report, a letter sent by the Sarpanch, Gram

Panchayat, Village Garhi to the Deputy Commissioner,

Narnaul to the effect that the Appellant was never

involved in illegal mining and the written statement of

the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Khudana to the

effect that he had no sound proof with respect to his

complaint against the Appellant, the DFO concluded that

the allegation of illegal mining against the Appellant is

not proved. Curiously, we find that there is no reference

to this report submitted by the DFO dated 15.10.2019 in

the Termination Order.

11. As stated above, the High Court set aside the order

passed by the Appellate Authority dated 26.04.2021 and

10 remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. In

the order dated 11.08.2021, the Appellate Authority

referred to the report from the Mining Officer dated

04.02.2019 to conclude that there were clear signs of

fresh mining from the photographs sent along with the

report. According to the Appellate Authority, illegal

mining by the Appellant was established from the

demarcation report dated 17.12.2018 and was

evidenced even after the ADC Report. The Appellate

Authority dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the

alleged illegal mining was carried out in an area adjacent

to the leased area of the Appellant and in a period where

mining by M/s Hari Har Mining Company was shut. The

statement made on behalf of the Appellant that M/s Hari

Har Mining Company was carrying out illegal mining

operations was considered by the Appellate Authority as

an attempt to create confusion.

12. We have already referred to the demarcation report

dated 17.12.2018 and the report of the Mining Officer

dated 04.02.2019, on the basis of which no conclusion

can be reached about the Appellant indulging in any

11 illegal mining operations. The Termination Order and

the Appellate Order are arbitrary and suffer from the vice

of unreasonableness. Relevant material has not been

taken into consideration before the Termination Order

was passed. There is no mention of the DFO’s report

dated 15.10.2019, which considered the reports relied on

by the Director General, Mines and Geology and

absolved the Appellant of indulging in any illegal mining

activity on the ground that no evidence was found

against the Appellant. There is no other material against

the Appellant in support of the allegation that the

Appellant was engaged in illegal mining in the area

adjacent to the leased site. In our view, the High Court

committee an error in dismissing the writ petition

without examining as to whether there was an iota of

evidence to justify the Termination Order. We are aware

that constitutional courts, in exercise of their power of

judicial review, would not examine sufficiency of

evidence. At the same time, it is well-settled that

interference is warranted if it is found that the weight of

the evidence was opposed to the conclusion recorded or

12 there was no evidence at all, rendering the conclusion

ex-facie erroneous or perverse1.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the

order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Director General,

Mines and Geology, Haryana, the order dated

11.08.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority and the

impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06.09.2021.

14. The Appeal is allowed.

.....................................J. [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]

..................................... [ B.R. GAVAI ]

New Delhi, May 9, 2022.

1 Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759; High Court of A.P. v. Nirmala K.R. Dayavathi (2015) 15 SCC 681 13