M.N. Bhandari, J.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 29.4.2016 passed on a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was given two Mining Leases bearing No.7/2001 and 8/2001. He had excavated minerals only from those mining leases and transported under ravanas issued in favour of the petitioner. He did not excavate minerals outside the mining leases granted to the petitioner. The allegations were made against the petitioner for excavation of minerals from the land between M.L.7/2001 and M.L.8/2001. When the inspection was carried out earlier on the complaint of the villagers, nothing was found against the petitioner rather it was taken to be a case of waste of time of the Department. On the second occasion, the report was prepared showing excavation of minerals by the petitioner ignoring that prior to grant of M.L. to the petitioner, rights of mining was given to Maheshwari Brothers. The excavation of the area was also on grant of S.T.P. but ignoring the aforesaid, the order has been passed against the petitioner showing excavation of huge mineral. It was even in ignorance of the fact that no machinery or vehicle was ceased without which minerals cannot be excavate and transported.

3. The petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act of 2005"). It is admitted by respondents that no machinery or vehicles have been ceased. Ignoring the aforesaid, the order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for respondents has contested the writ petition. It is submitted that inspection was conducted on two occasions. The excavation of the mineral was found not only in between the two mining leases granted to the petitioner but between M.L. No.8/2001 and the highway. The two pits were measured to find out the quantity of mineral and, accordingly, appropriate order was passed. It is after exclusion of the mineral excavated on grant of S.T.P. in between two mining leases.

5. The Competent Authority thus reduced 1260 tonnes of minerals for determination of amount. The order was thus passed after appropriate inspection and even with reduction of the quantity of mineral excavated under S.T.P. thus petitioner's allegations of allotment of S.T.P. has also been taken into consideration. The S.T.P. was permitted between M.L. 7/2001 and 8/2001 and quantity of mineral has been reduced. It is also submitted that inspection was on a complaint made by the villagers. It was mainly in reference to the environmental hazard. When inspection was made, excavation from the area between the two M.L. and between M.L. 8/2001 and the highway was found.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, the plea taken by the petitioner may not be accepted. Accordingly, writ petition may be dismissed. It is moreso when, to prove excavation, seizure of machinery and vehicle is not a pre-condition.

7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

8. The challenge to the order dated 29.4.2016 has been made mainly on factual grounds. It is submitted that excavation of minerals may be by those who were given S.T.P. or by the earlier lease holders. The plea aforesaid has already been considered by the Revisional Authority and relevant para is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

^^vfHkHkkod izkFkhZ QeZ dh cgl ij euu fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds rF;kRed izfrosnu o i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA blls Li"V gS fd [kuu iV~Vk 7@01 ,oa 8@01 izkFkhZ Jh iznhi flag Hknksfj;k iq= Jh txnh'k fuoklh /kkSyiqj ds i{k esa Lohd`fr fd, x, FksA bu nksuksa [kuu iV~Vk {ks= ,e0,y0 07@01 ,oa 08@01 dh izkFkhZ dh ekStwnxh esa rS;kj dh xbZ ekSdk tkWap fjiksVZ fnukad 25-05-2015 ds eqrkfcd nksuksa [kuu iV~Vksa ds e/; xSi {ks= esa Lohd`fr {ks= ls ckgj ,oa ,e0,y0 8@01 ds if'pr fn'kk esa [kuu iV~Vs ds ckgj [kfut eflujh LVksu dk voS/k [kuu fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k ftldh dqy ek=k 22260 Vu vkadh xbZ bl voS/k [kuu gsrq ,e0,e0lh0vkj0 1986 ds fu;e 48 ds rgr mR[kfur [kfut dh x.kuk dj izdj.k esa fu;ek