The Punjab and Haryana high court has rapped Punjab government for not following laid down rules for termination of mining contracts and fined it with ₹50,000.
The high court bench of justice AG Masih and justice Alok Jain acted on a plea from Prime Vision Industries Pvt. Ltd, a firm whose contract was terminated on September 23 by an order of the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Punjab. Hence, the firm approached high court on October 19
The court found that the contract was terminated in violation of the provisions of Rule 68 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 2013, which details the procedure to deal with violation by contractors and penalties. It also found that the principle of natural justice was also not complied with.
After the firm approached high court, the government had taken back the order on October 26 and before court state’s counsel had argued realising the mistake with regard to the provisions of the statute having not been complied with, especially rule 68 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules, 2013, the order has been withdrawn. The termination at the end of the competent authority may be taken as an aberration on the part of the said officer, the state’s law officer had submitted assuring the court that it would not happen in future as the provisions of the statute would be complied with in letter and spirit.
However, court observed that it was not inclined to accept it at the “face value” as on the earlier two occasions when similar matters had come up before the court, reference to the provisions of rule 68 and the mandate of the same were explained in detailed. In September 15, order the court in another matter had clarified the position and also mentioned the aspect of noncompliance of the statutory provisions, the court said adding that not only this, it was made clear that the official should be careful in future while passing such orders.
{{/usCountry}}However, court observed that it was not inclined to accept it at the “face value” as on the earlier two occasions when similar matters had come up before the court, reference to the provisions of rule 68 and the mandate of the same were explained in detailed. In September 15, order the court in another matter had clarified the position and also mentioned the aspect of noncompliance of the statutory provisions, the court said adding that not only this, it was made clear that the official should be careful in future while passing such orders.
{{/usCountry}}“... but unfortunately the said word of caution has not really had its effect and again one more order was passed on September 23, again in violation of the same provisions, making the same mistake as was earlier committed,” the court further observed imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on the government to be paid to the petitioner within one week.