Arun Palli, J. - (1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for to quash the demand notice, dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P1), vide which the petitioner was directed to furnish royalty amounting to Rs. 14,14,800/- on account of unauthorized excavation of minor mineral (gravel); notices dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P7), dated 07.03.2013 (Annexure P8), whereby the said amount was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue; as also the order dated 06.11.2013 (Annexure P12), vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the proposed recovery was dismissed by Director Mining, Industries and Commerce, Punjab (respondent No.2).
(2.) Facts that are required to be noticed are limited. Petitioner is a Stone Crushing Unit situated at village Khera Kamlot (Nangran), Tehsil Nangal, District Roopnagar. A Committee was constituted by the respondent-Department to check illegal or unauthorized mining by the Stone Crushing Units located in and around Khera Kamlot (Nangran). During the course of survey/inspection by the Committee, it was found that the petitioner i.e. M/s Grewal Stone Crusher, Khera Kamlot/Nangran, had caused unauthorized mining of minor mineral (gravel). Accordingly, a report, dated 06.04.2011, with requisite details was submitted by the Committee to the Mining Officer, Mohali. Consequently, the Assessing Authority, vide notice, dated 21.04.2011 (Annexure R3), directed the petitioner to appear on a date specified in the notice and produce its books of accounts and other related records. However, neither did the petitioner appear before the assessing authority nor furnish any document/reply/objection to the said notice. Thereafter, in terms of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the 1964 Rules'), a demand notice, dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P1), was issued by the Mining Officer, vide which petitioner was required to pay royalty amounting to Rs. 14,14,800/- by 9th of June, 2011. But, for the petitioner failed to deposit the royalty within the specified time, the Mining Officer, vide letter dated 12.11.2012 (Annexure R4), in Form 'M', requested the Collector, Roopnagar, to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. As a result, Assistant Collector, Grade II -cum- Naib Tehsildar, Nangal (respondent No.4), issued two separate notices, dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P7), dated 07.03.2013 (Annexure P8) and required the petitioner to deposit Rs. 14,14,800/- in the treasury. But, in the meanwhile, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director Mining, Industries and Commerce, Punjab (respondent No.2), against the demand and consequent recovery that was sought to be effected. However, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure P10), dismissed the appeal being barred by time. The said order was assailed by the petitioner vide CWP No.11951 of 2013 before this court, and vide order dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure P11), the Division Bench set aside the same. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits. But, for the Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the matter in issue and the material on record, found that the petitioner had indeed mined the land(s) without any permit/Theka/lease from the Government, vide order dated 06.11.2013 (Annexure P12), the appeal was dismissed. That is how, as indicated above, petitioner is before this court.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that all what form basis of the proceedings initiated by the respondents, and the amount that is sought to be recovered, is the report dated 06.04.2011 (Annexure R2), but a copy thereof was never furnished to the petitioner. Nor the petitioner was associated with the proceedings at any stage, till he received a notice from the Collector under the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, he submits that the proceedings in its entirety are vitiated on account of serious breach of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, before the department could raise a demand, requiring the petitioner to deposit royalty on account of unauthorized mining, an order of assessment, in terms of Rule 54-C of the 1964 Rules, was a pre-requisite. For, order of assessment was never passed by the Assessing Authority, recovery of an amount that purports to have been assessed defies logic.;