B.J.SHETHNA
RASID AHMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
B. J. SHETHNA, J.
( 1 ) ALL these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the points involved in all these petitions are same.
( 2 ) ON the information that illegal excavation is going on, the mining officers had spot inspection on 20-2-1997. They recorded the statement of labourers and the witnesses who were present there and prepared the inspection note (Panchanama) showing that illegal excavation activities were going on at the instance of several persons, who are the petitioners before this Court. On 21-3-1997, notice was ordered to be issued under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 against all the petitioners to deposit cost within 15 days and also to show cause as to why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against them before the competent criminal Court (Annexure 3 ). On receiving the same the petitioners filed separate replies to that notices and pleaded that they have been falsely involved in the matter because of several reasons and they prayed for cross-examination of witnesses, who were present there at the time of spot inspection. However, on 13-5-1997, in all the cases S. D. O. Jodhpur rejected the objections rais
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.