An error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. For stated reasons, delay in filing Review Petition No. 41/2016 is condoned. Application bearing inward No. 22457 dated 25.07.2016 stands disposed of.

2. These two review petitions, filed by Pawan Kumar Sharma and Jai Prakash Sharma, who are respectively father and son, seek review of the judgment of Division Bench of this court dated 25.08.2015. By that judgment, six appeals arising out of common judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby fifteen writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions, were dismissed. Aggrieved by division bench judgment dated 25.08.2015, review-petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were eventually dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to review-petitioners to file review petitions. Hence, these review-petitions.

Review Petition No. 6/2016

3. Mining lease for masonry stone for an area measuring 4000 square meter at 'Moda Pahad', Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, was granted to one Bhola Ram for ten years under the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules of 1986'). Subsequently, the lease was transferred to petitioner in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1986 and lease deed was registered in his favour and came into effect for the period from 15.12.1995 to 14.12.2014. On the basis of inspection carried out on 28.09.2001, a show cause notice was served on the review-petitioner on 10.10.2001 alleging that he has excavated 1115.1 MT of masonry stone outside the mining lease area, calling upon him to explain why penalty of ten times the royalty should not be charged. In reply thereto, the review-petitioner denied the allegation of illegal excavation outside mining lease area. He asserted that all monthly returns were furnished in time and no such objection was raised by respondents with regard thereto at any point of time. The area where illegal excavation is alleged was in fact the result of 'barsati nala' of the hill, wherefrom loose stones fell down and many loose stones remained like hanging wall. It were the labourers, who, after doing mining work in the sanctioned area, must have felled the stones behind the walls of the loose stone from safety point of view, but it was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner. Even then, for every grit of stone felled by the labourers, which were removed from the mining area to outside against the 'ravannas' issued by the mining department, royalty was paid to the contractor. Yet, the review-petitioner under protest deposited a sum of Rs. 55,755/- on 22.07.2002. Another inspection was carried out on 19.07.2004, in which it was found that review-petitioner was working within the four corners of the boundary of the mining lease granted to him after demarcation. A notice was issued by the Mining Engineer to the petitioner on 15.07.2010 alleging violation of Clause 4(7) of the Agreement and Rule 18(6) of the Rules of 1986 stating that the petitioner has not erected the boundary pillars and that the review-petitioner had not placed sign boards on the mining lease area and the mining work was not being carried by following safety measure. No allegation was made about any illegal or unauthorized excavation. Review-petitioner submitted reply to the notice on 02.08.2010.

4. The Government of Rajasthan, on a complaint dated 25.10.2010 made by one Mr. Om Prakash Absuaria, constituted a committee to carry out the site inspection of the mining area of the mines existed at 'Moda Pahad'. The committee determined that 36650.25 MT of masonry stone was mined by the review-petitioner from an area not allotted to him, though no equipments, vehicle etc. were found outside the mining area of review-petitioner. Respondents then again carried out inspection on 08.12.2010, in report of which, it was clearly mentioned that all four pillars as well as the sign boards were existing. There was no sign of illegal excavation. Even then, the Mining Engineer sent a letter to t