IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2596 (MS) of 2011 Kushlanand …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarkhand. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1.12.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Chamoli (respondent no. 3) whereby the District Magristrate, Chamoli on a report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karanprayag, district Chamoli, has held that the petitioner is indulging in illegal mining of minor minerals and thereafter imposed cost as well as penalty of ` 4,52,000/-to the petitioner and he has been directed to pay it within a period of ten days, failing which an F.I.R. would be lodged against him. One of the grounds alleged by the petitioner is that the inquiry has been done behind his back and the impugned order has been passed without any show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing, to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that had an opportunity of hearing been given to him he could have shown his innocence in the matter and proved the fact that the allegations against him are baseless. 4. Be that as it may, this Court is not going into the merits of the case. However, on the face of it, this Court 2 feels that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order dated 1.12.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Chamoli is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Chamoli within ten days from today, the District Magistrate, Chamoli shall give a reasonable opportunity of haring and thereafter appropriate order be passed. It is made clear that the District Magistrate, Chamoli is not required to give a detail hearing to the petitioner as it is done in the court of law. All what is required is a reasonable opportunity of hearing, where the petitioner must also cooperate. It is made clear that needful be done as expeditiously as possible. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. Certified copy of this order be issued today itself on payment of usual charges. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 13.12.2011 VKG