Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ the petitioner while giving challenge to the proviso to Rule

48(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of

1986”) has also challenged the notices dated 012.1991 and 29.07.1992.

2. At the threshold of hearing Counsel for the petitioners has withdrawn his challenge to the validity of provision to Rule 48(5) of the Rules of 1986. The Court, therefore, is examining validity of notices dated 012.1991 and 29.07.1992 without determining challenge to proviso to Rule 48(5) of the Rules of 1986.

3. By notice dated 012.1991 the Assistant Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Sojat City, called upon the petitioner to submit explanation with regard to alleged illegal mining operation by him and for deposition of recovery of sum of Rs. 1,07,100/-, against the royalty with fine for illegal mining operation. The petitioner by a representation dated 18.01.1992 denied for his involvement in any illegal mining operation. The petitioner in quite unambiguous terms stated that he was not involved in illegal mining operation as alleged. No inspection was made by the authorities of the