Prateek Agarwal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Opposite Hotel Ashoka, Road No.2, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Karan Tibrewal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 21/02/2025 This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jhunjhunu. The relevant facts in brief are that the mining lease licence issued in favour of the petitioner no.1 came to an end on

28.05.2025 by efflux of time whereupon, possession of the site was taken by the respondents on 29.05.2024 and at that time, the stock of 66633.5 metric ton of the excavated mineral was lying at [2025:RJ-JP:7929] (2 of 5) [CW-2780/2025] the site. Under the relevant law, six months' time was available with the petitioner to remove the aforesaid already excavated mineral. The petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17868/2024 before this Court alleging that delay in issuance of Ravanna for uplifting the excavated mineral curtailed the statutory period of six months and prayed for extension of time wherein, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 26.11.2024, issued some interim directions including the direction no.5 as under:- “5. In the meantime respondents shall ensure that petitioner does not continue with the mining activity, status quo shall be maintained qua stock already excavated.” Alleging that despite expiry of the period of mining lease and despite interim direction of this Court not to continue with the mining activity, the petitioner has carried out illegal mining, it was served upon with a show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 by the Mining Engineer which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Assailing the show cause notice, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not only illegal being based on incorrect facts; but, has been issued with predetermined mind as well. He submits that since, the site is in possession of the respondents since 29.05.2024, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have carried out any illegal mining activity. He further submits that the site inspection has been carried out behind their back which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Senior Counsel urged that ordinarily, a [2025:RJ-JP:7929] (3 of 5) [CW-2780/2025] writ petition assailing the show cause notice is not maintainable; but, since, in the instant case, it has been issued with predetermined mind, this writ petition is maintainable. To buttress his submission, he relies upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors.: MANU/SC/8736/2006. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 be quashed and set aside. Heard. Considered. As already observed, the gravamen of the grievance of the petitioner is the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 served upon it alleging illegal excavation of mineral, the operative portion whereof, reads as under:- ^^vr% vkidks bl dkj.k crkvks uksfVl }kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mijksDr ds lEcU/k esa vki viuk i{k@nLrkost izLrqr djuk pkgrs gS vFkok O;fDrxr :i ls lquokbZ dk ekSdk pkgrs gS rks bl i= izkfIr ds 30 fnol dh vof/k esa i{k izLrqr djsA vU;Fkk ckn le;kof/k voS/k :i ls fuxZfer [kfut dh ,e-,e-Mh-vkj- ,DV] 1957 dh /kkjk 21¼5½ ds rgr ekax dk;e dj nh tkosxh rFkk vki }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dh] dh xbZ voekuuk ds lEcU/k esa leqfpr dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA^^ The show cause notice has been issued by a competent authority requiring the petitioner to submit its response within 30 days. As informed, the petitioner has already submitted its reply [2025:RJ-JP:7929] (4 of 5) [CW-2780/2025] to the aforesaid show cause notice and is pending consideration. The law with regard to scope of interference in writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is well settled. It can be done only if it is issued by the incompetent authority, is in clear violation of principles of natural justice or is vague, arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fide. None of the aforesaid contingencies exists in the impugned notice. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference in the show cause notice at this stage. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, based on judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Siemens Ltd. (supra), does not merit acceptance. Therein, vide notice under challenge, a demand for payment of CESS was already raised and after going through the contents of counter affidavit filed by the authority issuing the demand, their Lordships were of the opinion that the notice was issued with premeditation and even if a direction was issued to the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, it would not yield any fruitful purpose. It was specifically observed that the respondent has clearly made up it mind which was explicit from both; the counter affidavit as also the purported show cause. However, in the instant case, no such situation obtains. The impugned show cause notice reflects that it is based on the inspection carried out at the site by the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel has failed to demonstrate anything from the notice so as to warrant an inference that it has been issued with premeditated mind except making a bald assertion. [2025:RJ-JP:7929] (5 of 5) [CW-2780/2025] Insofar as submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner qua site inspection carried out without notice is concerned, no law; either statutory of precedential has been cited that it can only be carried out after serving notice. This Court is prima facie of the view that sudden and surprise inspection can be carried out if warranted; but, since, the matter is still pending consideration before the competent authority, this Court does not wish to delve deep into the aspect. Further, as already observed, the petitioners have already submitted their response to the aforesaid show cause notice and the authority is yet to take its decision. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds the writ petition to be premature, devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. PRAGATI/21 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J