District Kota v. State of Rajasthan, through Deputy Mining Secretary

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, through Deputy Mining Secretary, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) The Addl. Director (Mines), Kota Zone, District Kota. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Kota Circle, District

3. Kota.

4. The Mining Engineer, Ramganjmandi Kota Circle, District Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. R.S.Mehta-Sr. Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Niti Jain for Mr. Bharat Vyas-AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/07/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the several orders passed by the respondents on various dates i.e.

21.01.2019, 22.05.2019, 27.01.2022 and 09.03.2022 and a demand has been raised against the petitioner to deposit the dead rent.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted mining lease in the year 1977 and the same was renewed from time to time. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was called upon to get the clearance from the National Board for Wild Life (for short, ‘NBWL’). Counsel submits that an application was submitted in this regard before the Competent [2025:RJ-JP:24133] (2 of 4) [CW-6966/2023] Authority but in the meantime, the High Power Committee had taken a decision to close down all the mining activities falling in the Mukundara Hills. Counsel submits that under such circumstances, when no clearance was issued by the NBWL, pursuant to the decision taken by the High Power Committee, the petitioner was not allowed to carry out the mining activities and even then, the respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner to deposit the dead rent. Counsel submits that once the petitioner was not allowed to carry out the mining activities on account of the orders passed by the High Power Committee, the petitioner is not supposed to deposit the dead rent as desired by the respondents. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following orders:-

1. Smt. Sushila Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3583/2016, decided on 12.05.2017)

2. Krishna Murari Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1413/1999, decided on 09.04.2009)

3. Counsel submits that those grounds were taken by the petitioner when the appeal/revision was submitted before the Appellate and Revisional Authority but without dealing with the above contentions raised by the petitioner, the appeal as well as revision petition were rejected not only on merits but also on the technical count that the petitioner has failed to deposit the dead rent. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is duty bound to deposit the dead rent, in terms of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession [2025:RJ-JP:24133] (3 of 4) [CW-6966/2023] Rules, 1986. Counsel submits that the only exception under the Rules is that some injunction order has to be passed by the Court but in the instant case, no such order was passed against the petitioner restraining his mining activities, hence under these circumstances, he is supposed to deposit/pay the dead rent. Counsel submits that considering this material aspect of the matter all the authorities have passed a cogent and reasoned order, which requires no interference of this Court and the present writ petition is liable to be rejected.

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

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the mining lease was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1977 and the same was extended/renewed from time to time. The record further indicates that the petitioner was called upon to get clearance from the NBWL and an application was submitted in this regard, but no orders were passed on the said application on account of the decision taken by the High Power Committee and due to the same, the petitioner was not in a position to carry out the mining activities and in the meantime, the respondents have raised a demand by issuing a notice to the petitioner to deposit the dead rent and all these notices/orders passed by the respondents were assailed by the petitioner before the appellate/ revisional authorities and all these grounds were taken in the memo of the appeal/revision. Perusal of the order passed by the appellate/revisional authority clearly indicates that the contentions in this regard and the grounds taken were duly dealt with in the impugned orders [2025:RJ-JP:24133] (4 of 4) [CW-6966/2023] and all those grounds were neither accepted nor rejected and no discussion with regard to those grounds have been considered by the appellate/revisional authority and straightaway the order impugned has been passed, upholding the order raising demand against the petitioner to deposit the dead rent.

7. It is settled proposition of law, that it is the duty of the appellate/revisional authority to deal with the arguments and grounds raised by the aggrieved person, and pass a reasoned and speaking order with regard to the acceptance of rejection of the grounds so raised by the aggrieved persons but in the instant case, there has been no discussion about the grounds taken by the petitioner in the impugned order passed by the authorities concerned and the impugned order was passed by the Appellate/Revisional Authority with complete non- application of mind, hence the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is quashed and set aside.

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order, after considering the arguments so raised by the petitioner.

9. Needless to observe that the Appellate Authority would pass fresh order after hearing the arguments of both the sides expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. The parties would be at liberty to submit the written submissions before the Appellate Authority. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/73