R/o Shopura Ki Bawdi, District Bundi (Rajasthan) v. State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department on 28 May 2025

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. State of Rajasthan, Through The Joint Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Mines and Geology, Department of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

4. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Department of Mines And Geology, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer.

5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Behind Balaji Marble, Ajmer Road, Sawar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. A.K.Sharma-Sr. Advocate Mr. Rachit Sharma Mr. Mohit Soni Mr. Madhav Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha-AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/05/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the respondents by which the penalty has been imposed against the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion also, the similar kind of order was passed against the petitioner by (2 of 5) [CW-14404/2024] the respondents on 17.12.2015 and the said order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1122/2016 and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to pass fresh reasoned and speaking order after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel submits that after passing the aforesaid order, the respondents send a notice to the petitioner on 06.11.2023 which was served upon the petitioner on 13.11.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioner was busy in contesting the election of the Member of Legislative Assembly, which was scheduled to be held on

25.11.2023, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner could not submit the reply to the aforesaid notice and the order impugned has been passed even without considering the earlier objections/reply submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner in pursuance of the earlier order dated 20.07.2023 passed by this Court, hence under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that after passing of the order dated 20.07.2023 by this Court, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on

06.11.2023 asking the petitioner to submit the reply within thirty days. Counsel submits that said notice was served upon the petitioner on 13.11.2023 but inspite of passing a considerable (3 of 5) [CW-14404/2024] time, i.e. more than 30 days, no reply was submitted and the petitioner never appeared before the authorities for taking his stand against the penalty as imposed by the respondents. Counsel submits that on 26.12.2023, a reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the authorities on the basis of the material available on record. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected.

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

5. Perusal of the record indicates that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 1122/2016 and the same was decided by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2023 with the following observations and directions:- “Petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer,Department of Mines & Geology, Sawar Distt. Ajmer, whereby a demand of Rs.43,00,55,930/- was established against the petitioner-company and same was to be deposited within a period of fifteen days. It was also stated in the said order that in case of default, the security amount would be forfeited and action of cancellation of mining lease would be taken. The basic challenge to the order dated 17.12.2015 is based on the principle of natural justice and on the ground that the order impugned is not a reasoned and speaking order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents filed an application No.311 dated 03.01.2017 and stated therein that with the view of clarity and transparency, the respondents are ready to grant further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate and speaking order but since the matter is pending before the Court, they have prayed for permission of the Court (4 of 5) [CW-14404/2024] to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in relation to the question involved in this writ petition. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no objection in regard to the averments made in the application No.311/03.01.2017. Taking into consideration the issue involved in the writ petition as well as the order which is under challenge in the present writ petition and so also the averments made in the application filed by the applicant- No.311/03.01.2017 respondent, this Court feels that it would be just and proper to allow the application. Hence the application No.311/03.01.2017 is allowed. The Order dated 17.12.2015 is quashed and set aside with all consequential effects and respondents are at liberty to pass fresh reasoned and speaking order after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, present writ petition stands disposed, as above. Since the main petition has been dismissed, stay application and all other pending application/s also stand dismissed.”

6. It appears that in consequence of the aforesaid order, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.11.2023 and the same was served upon the petitioner on 13.11.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was busy in contesting the election of the MLA and the elections were conducted on

25.11.2023 and the result was declared in the first week of December, hence, the petitioner was not getting sufficient opportunity to submit the reply to the aforesaid notice.

7. It is true that inspite of receipt of notice, the petitioner did not submit reply to the same for the reasons stated above but it is equally true that earlier response/reply submitted by the petitioner was available with the respondents and the same has been quoted in the impugned order passed itself at the page no. 2 (5 of 5) [CW-14404/2024] to 5. It appears that the earlier response/reply submitted by the petitioner was not taken into account by the respondents and straightway the impugned order has been passed in a cursory manner without application of mind.

8. On this count alone, the present writ petition stands disposed of and the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to pass a fresh and speaking order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner.

9. Needless to observe that the needful exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of two months.

10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Ashu/314 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J