Jaipur, Rajasthan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jaipur

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jaipur, Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006.

2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303301.

3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303301. connected with ----Respondents (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8284/2025 M/s Ram Stone Crusher, Through Its Proprietor Abhishek Pal Singh, R/o Village Ghata, Post Benada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jaipur, Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006

2. Sub-Divisional Megistrate, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303301

3. Tehsildar, Teshil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303301 ----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8302/2025 M/s Balaji Stone Crusher Industries, (Also Known As Bagra Stone Crusher Industries) Through Its Sole Proprietor, Lekhraj Sharma, R/o Village Ghata, Post Benada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus [2025:RJ-JP:22192] (2 of 6) [CW-8282/2025]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jaipur, Collectorate Circle, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006.

2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303301.

3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303301. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.S. S. Hora with Mr.Kaushal Sharma & Ms.Nimisha Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/05/2025

1. Since common question of facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer incorporated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8282/2025 are taken into consideration.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “That in light of the above-mentioned facts, the Petitioner humbly prays that the present Writ Petition may be admitted, and this Hon’ble Court may pass an order quashing the Notice No.402 dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-1) issued by the Respondent No.3 and further allow the Petitioner to run his stone crusher without any hurdles.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the stone crushers and they are not a part of any illegal mining activities. Counsel submits that impleading the [2025:RJ-JP:22192] (3 of 6) [CW-8282/2025] petitioners as party-respondents in the array of cause-title, a public interest litigation bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.19130/2023 was submitted by one Ranglal Gurjar and the same was decided without issuing notice to the petitioners vide order dated 20.12.2023 with the following observations and directions:- “Allegation made in this PIL is that respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 are operating mining activities and running crushers without lease or appropriate authority under the law. It is submitted that earlier against respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9 action was taken on the basis of the PIL and in the contempt petition statement regarding compliance of order was made. Therefore, contempt petition was closed. He submits that now respondent no. 7 & 9 have again started the illegal activities of mining and operating crusher illegally. We find that as far as respondent no.8 is concerned, earlier petition did not involve any action against him. The District Collector, Jaipur shall cause appropriate inquiry to be made on the allegations contained in the petition by constituting a Committee of senior officers in the mining department and revenue department to be headed by an officer not below the rank of SubDivisional Officer. The inquiry shall be completed and the report shall be obtained within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Depending upon the said report, the appropriate action, if required under the law shall be taken. Respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 would be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Committee constituted by the Collector, as directed above. In case, the petitioner’s grievance that still illegal activities are going on, despite action, if any, taken by the authorities, the petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh petition. [2025:RJ-JP:22192] (4 of 6) [CW-8282/2025] Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.”

5. Counsel submits that while deciding the aforesaid writ petition, this Court issued a direction to the District Collector, Jaipur to cause appropriate enquiry, by constituting a Committee and appropriate orders be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Counsel submits that when no Committee was constituted, the petitioner in the said PIL, i.e., the Ranglal Gurjar filed a contempt petition for compliance of the order dated 20.12.2023, wherein certain orders were passed, through which the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Counsel submits that in the meantime, a show-cause notice in the nature of prohibition was issued to the petitioners to stop the stone crushing work with immediate effect vide notice dated 16.04.2025, against which a detailed reply in the form of objection was submitted by the petitioners on 05.05.2025, but till date, the said reply/ objection has not been decided by the Committee concerned and now, the Committee/ respondents are not allowing the petitioners to do the stone crushing activities.

6. Counsel submits that an application was submitted by the petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.759/2024, for their impleadment, thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed a following order:- “Heard. In this pending contempt petition, an application (No.1/2025) seeking impleadment has been filed by two stone crusher operators stating that in the garb of compliance of the order of the Court, without affording any opportunity of hearing, adverse action has been [2025:RJ-JP:22192] (5 of 6) [CW-8282/2025] taken and their crushers have been closed down in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed applicants would submit that while disposing of the writ petition without deciding the issue, this Court directed an enquiry to be made and decision to be taken on various complaints raised by the PIL petitioner, with clear caveat that the proposed applicants would be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Upon filing of contempt petition, pressure was exerted on the officials to hush up enquiry and come out with a face saving exercise in the contempt petition. In that anxiety, it is argued, the authorities without affording opportunity of hearing, have closed down the crushers which is illegal as the proposed applicants assert that operation of stone crushers by them is strictly in accordance with law and there is no violation. Irrespective of the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the proposed applicants, we are of the view that the aforesaid issue as to whether the decision taken by the authorities in closing down the crushers operated by the proposed applicants was just and proper, cannot be gone into in the contempt petition. We leave the proposed applicants to work out such remedy, as may be available to them under the law. With the aforesaid liberty, the application is rejected. The contempt petition be listed after four weeks.”

7. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing these writ petitions. Counsel submits that without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, straightaway the impugned notice dated 16.04.2024 has been issued to the petitioners in a prohibitory form asking them to stop the stone [2025:RJ-JP:22192] (6 of 6) [CW-8282/2025] crushing activities with immediate effect. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the respondents has resulted in utter violation of principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

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

9. Considering the argument put forward by the counsel for the petitioners and after going through the orders dated 20.12.2023 as well as the order dated 12.05.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that without affording any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order should not have been passed by the Authorities concerned and such an action on the part of the respondents has violated the principles of natural justice.

10. Keeping in view the above factual aspect of the matter, all these writ petitions stand disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the reply/ objection submitted by the petitioners against the notice dated 16.04.2025 expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

11. For a period of five weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners.

12. It goes without saying that the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law, in case, any adverse order is passed against them.

13. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /25 to 27 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J