Years, R/o Halwai Khana Dholpur, Rajasthan v. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Additional Director, Mining, Vigilance, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Dholpur, District Dholpur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Nishant Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma AAG, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS 13/04/2018 Order

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein and confirmed the order passed by the revisional authority.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was given two Mining Leases bearing No.7/2001 and 8/2001. He had excavated minerals only from those mining leases and transported under (2 of 5) [SAW-804/2017] ravanas issued in favour of the appellant. He did not excavate minerals outside the mining leases granted to the appellant. The allegations were made against the appellant for excavation of minerals from the land between M.L.7/2001 and M.L.8/2001. When the inspection was carried out earlier on the complaint of the villagers, nothing was found against the appellant rather it was taken to be a case of waste of time of the Department. On the second occasion, the report was prepared showing excavation of minerals by the appellant ignoring that prior to grant of M.L. to the appellant, rights of mining was given to Maheshwari Brothers. The excavation of the area was also on grant of S.T.P. but ignoring the aforesaid, the order has been passed against the appellant showing excavation of huge mineral. It was even in ignorance of the fact that no machinery or vehicle was seized without which minerals cannot be excavate and transported.

3. Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge as well as the revisional Authority have failed to appreciate that when the inspection was carried out, the appellant was not given proper opportunity and he has taken us to the observations of the revisional authority which are reproduced by the learned Single Judge.

4. Counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the learned Single Judge and the revisional authority and contended that in view of the observations made by the authority, sufficient leniency was shown by the authority and no further liberal attitude is required to be made by this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (3 of 5) [SAW-804/2017]

6. In our considered opinion, while considering the matter the learned Single Judge has rightly held as under: “The challenge to the order dated 29.4.2016 has been made mainly on factual grounds. It is submitted that excavation of minerals may be by those who were given S.T.P. or by the earlier lease holders. The plea aforesaid has already been considered by the Revisional Authority and relevant para is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- ^^vfHkHkkod izkFkhZ QeZ dh cgl ij euu fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds rF;kRed izfrosnu o i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA blls Li"V gS fd [kuu iV~Vk 7@01 ,o a 8@01 izkFkhZ Jh iznhi flag Hknksfj;k iq= Jh txnh’k fuoklh /kkSyiqj ds i{k esa Lohd`r fd, x, FksA bu nksuksa [kuu iV~Vk {ks= ,e,y 07@01 ,o a 08@01 dh izkFkhZ dh ekStwnxh esa rS;kj dh xbZ ekSdk tkap fjiksVZ fnukad 25-05-2015 ds eqrkfcd nksuksa [kuu iV~Vksa ds e/; xSi {ks= esa ¼Lohd`r {ks= ls ckgj½ ,oa ,e,y 8@01 ds if’pe fn’kk esa [kuu iV~V ds ckgj [kfut eflujh LVksu dk voS/k [kuu fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k ftldh dqy ek=k 22260 Vu vkadh xbZ bl voS/k [kuu gsrq ,e,elhvkj 1986 ds fu;e 48 ds rgr mR[kfur [kfut dh x.kuk dj izdj.k esa fu;ekuqdwy 'kkLrh yxk, tkus ;ksX; gSA mDr nksuksa [kuu iV~Vs Lo;a izkFkhZ ds gh Fks rFkk mDr xSi {ks= esa izkFkhZ ds vykok vU; fdlh ds }kjk [kfut dk mR[kuu fd;k tkuk ekuk tkuk fdl izdkj mfpr gSA bl ekSdk iapukek ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks ,d uksfVl fnukad 17-6-2015 dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk iV~Vk {ks= ds ckgj 22260 Vu voS/k [kfut [kuu ekuk x;k FkkA bl uksfVl dk tokc gsrq izkFkhZ us fnukad 24-06-2015 dks 10 fnol dk le; pkgk Fkk ,oa izkFkhZ }kjk tokc fnukad 01-07-2015 dks izLrqr fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr bl tokc esa izkFkhZ us ;g vafdr fd;k fd izkFkhZ ds [kuu iV~Vksa esa iwoZ ls gh dqN ,l0Vh0ih0 tkjh dh xbZ gSA blh izdkj dk tokc fnukad 12-08-2015 dks izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl lanHkZ esa lgk;d [kfu vfHk;Urk] /kkSyiqj us fnukad 24-08-2015 dks vius dk;kZy; ds losZ;j dks izkFkhZ ds vkosnu ds vuqlkj fdjksjhyky] eqjkjhyky] ds uke ls vof/k fnukad 6-6-90 ls 5-6-2000 rd izHkko’khy Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vk ,oa loZJh egs’ojh cznlZ fy0 vkxjk /kSyiqj jksM izkstsDV ,u0,p0 3 ,u,p,vkbZ dks vYikof/k vuqefr i= ¼,l0Vh0ih0½ dk gokyk nsrs gq, bl lanHkZ esa tkap djus ds funsZ’k fn, rkfd izkFkhZ ds fo:) cuk, x, iapukek {ks= esa iwoZ esa gq, [kuu dk;Z dh fjiksVZ izkIr gks ldsA losZ;j us viuh fjiksVZ 24-08-2015 esa ;g ik;k x;k fd ,e0,0y 25@1989 dk {ks= izkFkhZ ds fo:) cuk, x, iapukesa ds {ks= ls nwj vkrk gS ijUrq loZJh egs’ojh cznlZ dks tkjh ,lVhih dk 300 oxZ ehVj {ks= izkFkhZ dks Lohd`r nksuksa [kuu iV~Vksa ds chp vofLFkr voS/k iapukesa ds {ks= esa fLFkr gS ftlesa mR[kfur [kfut dh ek=k 1260 Vu ekuh xbZ ftlds vk/kkj ij [kfu vfHk;Urk] /kkSyiqj us [kfut dh ek=k 1260 Vu de djrs gq, 21000 Vu voS/k [kuu ekudj :- 69]30]000@& dh ekax dk vuqeksnu v/kh{k.k [kfu vfHk;Urk] Hkjriqj ls pkgkA bldk vuqeksnu v/kh{k.k [kfu vfHk;Urk ls fd, tkus ij ekax dk;eh dh tkdj izkFkhZ dks jkf’k tek djkus dk uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;kA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku gS fd mls lquokbZ dk volj fn, cxSj ;g vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] mfpr ugha gS D;ksafd ekSdk tkap izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr esa dh xbZ Fkh rnqijkUr izkFkhZ dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ ds tokc ds vuqlkj izdj.k esa iqu% tkap djokrs gq, 1260 Vu [kfut dh ek=k voS/k [kfut dh ek=k esa ls de dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk fd mlds fo:) voS/k [kuu dk dksbZ izdj.k iwoZ esa ugha cuk Fkk ,oa voS/k [kfut dk ifjogu djrk gqvk dksbZ okgu foHkkx }kjk ugha idMk x;k] blfy, mlds fo:) dksbZ izdj.k ugaha curk gS] Hkh mfpr ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ ds i{k esa nks [kuu iV~Vs Lohd`r gSa ftlds fy, tkjh joUuk ls nksuksa [kuu iV~Vksa ds e/; xSi {ks= ls [kfut dk fuxZeu dj ldrk gS] vr% izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ Hkh ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ us viuh fjohtu esa ,d vk/kkj ;g Hkh fy;k gS fd fnukad 25-05-2015 dk fujh{k.k izkFkhZ dks uksfVl fn, fcuk fd;k x;k gS] blfy, voS/kkfud gSA bl (4 of 5) [SAW-804/2017] laca/k esa bl U;k;ky; ds fouez er esa tc izdj.k esa foHkkx ds vf/kdkjhx.k ds le{k voS/k [kuu dh f’kdk;r ekStwn Fkh ml fLFkfr esa foHkkxh; vf/kdkjhx.k }kjk ekSds ij tkdj tkWp djuk] vuqfpr ugha FkkA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ekSdk fjiksVZ 25-05-2015 esa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd [kuu iV~Vk/kkjh ekSds ij mifLFkr gksus ds ckotwn gLrk{kj djus ls euk fd;k tcfd [kuu iV~Vk/kkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd os foHkkxh; vf/kdkjhx.k dks tkap esa lg;ksx djrsA izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk fd mlds [kuu iV~Vk {ks= ij tkjh ,lVhih ij foHkkx us fopkj ugha fd;k] mfpr ugha gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ ds fo:) tks iapukek cuk;k x;k gS og [kuu iV~Vk {ks= voS/k [kuu dk gS ftlds lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ dks 1260 Vu dh jkgr foHkkx }kjk nh tk pqdh gSA [kuu iV~Vk {ks= esa tkjh dh xbZ ,lVhih ls gq, [kuu dks iV~Vk {ks= ls ckgj cus fiV ls fudkyk x;k [kfut dSls ekuk tk ldrk gS\ izkFkhZ us bl ckr dk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gS fd tks ,lVhih izkFkhZ ds iV~Vk {ks= esa tkjh dh xbZ Fkh mu ,lVhih /kkjdksa us izkFkhZ ds vkoafVr [kuu iV~Vk {ks= ls ckgj iapukesa ds {ks= esa [kuu fd;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks bl rdZ ls Hkh dksbZ jkgr ugha fey ldrh gSA bl izdkj Li"V :i ls izkFkhZ us fjohtu esa tks vk/kkj izLrqr fd, x, gSa os vk/kkjghu gS ,oa ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ vius fjohtu esa izLrqr vk/kkjksa dks lkfcr djus esa vleFkZ jgk gSA vr% vkyksP; ekax uksfVl fnukad 07-07-2015 esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA blfy, izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fjohtu izkFkZuk i= dks mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA** The petitioner even made an application under the Act of 2005 but, therein also, information about the S.T.P. and the area therein or other related information was not taken. The information was only about seizure of machinery and vehicle which cannot be said to be so relevant to prove illegal excavation of minerals. It is, no doubt true that no vehicle or machinery was ceased but mearly for the reason, it cannot be presumed that no excavation took place. In view of above, this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the finding of fact so as to substitute its own finding. It is moreso when the finding recorded by the Rivisional Authority cannot be said to be perverse. The quantity of the mineral is another issue. According to the petitioner, quantity of 22260 tonnes cannot be transported easily. The arguments aforesaid has been raised hypothetically. The excavation of the minerals is not an unknown feature and its transportation can take place in connivance with the officials. In that case, the seizure of vehicle and machinery would not take place. The aforesaid is relevant moreso when the excavation of the minerals has been proved as two pits were found out of which one was between two mining leases in favour of the petitioner and other between M.L. 8/2001 and the highway.”

7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. (5 of 5) [SAW-804/2017]

8. The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The application (64199/2017) also stands disposed of. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J B.M.G/09