BENCH AT JAIPUR vs Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur.

: Mr.Ashwani Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.02.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 by which the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.2, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Division Bench [2025:RJ-JP:29740] (2 of 5) [CW-3866/2012] of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of M/s Shri Balaji Marbles Mines Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding D.B. Special Appeal No.109/2010 vide order dated

16.04.2010. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the order impugned be quashed and set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the mining lease itself was void ab initio and the same could not have been granted to the petitioner in terms of Rules 18 (26) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, “the Rules of 1986”). Counsel submits that this fact was brought into the notice by the District Collector, Bundi to the Assistant Engineer (Mining), but this fact was overlooked and the mining lease/ patta has illegally been issued in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that considering the provisions of the Rules of 1986 mining patta issued in favour of the petitioner was found to be void ab initio and the same has been rightly cancelled, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 17.02.2012 indicates that the respondents have cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner by treating the same as void ab initio. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that before passing the aforesaid order, neither any opportunity of hearing nor any notice was given to the petitioner and straightaway, the impugned order has been passed. [2025:RJ-JP:29740] (3 of 5) [CW-3866/2012]

7. This Court is not going into the merits of the matter as to whether the mining lease was correctly issued to the petitioner or not; whether the mining lease was issued in accordance with the Rules or not; but this fact cannot be overlooked by this Court that before affording any opportunity of hearing, an adverse order cannot be passed against a person. Such action on the part of the respondents amount to violation of principles of natural justice as this view has also been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Shri Balaji Marbles Mines (supra) which has been held as under:- “We have considered submissionsmade by both the parties and perused the judgment dated 08.01.2010 passed by learned Single Judge and perused the communication dated

14.6.2007, which was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. Upon perusal of the communication Annexure-15 dated 14.6.2007, it is revealed that by this communication the Superintending Mining Engineer, Hqrs. directed the Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Makarana that the order dated 19.7.2006 issued in favor of the appellant may be declared null and void and compliance report shall be made to the Directorate. In our opinion, it appears that although there is power left with the respondent Department to cancel or declare any order null andvoid under Rule 72 of the Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1986, if order is not in consonance with the Rules but no reasons [2025:RJ-JP:29740] (4 of 5) [CW-3866/2012] have been assigned in the order dated

14.6.2007. So also, it appears that no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been given to the appellant prior to issuing directions to declare the order dated 19.7.2006 as null and void by the Mining Engineer. In this view of the matter, while upholding the finding of learned Single Judge that there is power left with the Department under Rule 72 ofthe Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 to cancel and declare null and void any allotment, which is in contravention of the Rules, but at the same time, we are of the opinion that if any adverse order is required to be passed for cancellation or declaring null and void, then as per settled principle of law that it must be passed after providing opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, in this matter before issuing communication dated 14.6.2007 by the respondent No.3, no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant, therefore, in our opinion, the said communication dated 14.06.2007 for declaring order dated 19.07.2006 as null andvoid by the respondent No.3 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated

17.02.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed, however, the respondent-Authorities would be at liberty to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [2025:RJ-JP:29740] (5 of 5) [CW-3866/2012]

9. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the Collector, Bundi before appropriate forum of law.

10. In case, during pendency of this writ petition, the mining lease of the subject area has been allotted to other persons, it is expected from the respondents to provide them the opportunity of hearing as well, before deciding the matter again. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /74