JUDGMENT

Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. - Above noted batch of writ applications raise identical questions of facts and law, and therefore, have been taken up together for adjudication, by this common order, consented by the counsel for the parties.

2. For convenience factual matrix from SB CWP No.18618/2017 (Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology Vs. Smt. Suman Devi), is taken note of.

3. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts, which needs taken to be note of for appreciation of the controversy raised in the batch of writ applications are: that the respondent-Smt. Suman Devi, is lease holder of lease No.609/2007 and 610 of 2007, for excavation of mineral with terms and conditions stipulated therein. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that in the course of surprise inspection; it surfaced that mining activity was undertaken by the respondent-lease holders, without putting up sign board, poles indicating the boundary of the leased area and undertaking blasting without permission from the Competent Authority. On issuance of notice, response received from the lease-holders so also in view of the complaints received, including a complaint from one Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta son of Mr. Ram Swaroop; infraction of Section 15(1) (a) and 18 (21) (a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short "Rules of 1986") was found proved. And on an assessment of illegal excavation, a penalty of Rs.36,89,320/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Only), was inflicted by the Mining Engineer, Sikar, which was subjected to appeal(s) (Appeal No.65/2014 and 64/2014); successfully. Aggrieved of the order on appeal(s), the State-petitioner instituted revision petitions, which have been declined by impugned order dated 16th January, 2017, of which the petitioners-State as well as the complainant(s); are aggrieved of.

4. Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, learned Additional Government Counsel, reiterating the facts and grounds of the writ applications asserted hat mining operations were undertaken by the respondent-lease holders, without determination of TI 503. Further, on surprise inspection, other violations also surfaced which were in infraction of Rules 15(1)(a) and 18(21)(a) of the Rules of 1986; and therefore, the penalty inflicted by the Mining Engineer could not be faulted.

5. Learned Additional Government Counsel Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, contended that the Appellate Authority so also the authority while adjudicating upon the revision petitions vide impugned order dated 16th January, 2017; fell into gross error for they failed to take into consideration the factual matrix and materials on record as well as the documentary evidence.

6. Further, the documents, though photocopies, clearly indicated infraction of Rules 15(1)(a) and 18(21)(a) of the Rules of 1986.

7. Mr. Saransh Saini, learned counsel for the petitionercomplainants, who have also instituted connected writ applications (SB CWP Nos. 815/2018, 816/2018, 817/2018 & 820/2018), endorsing the stand of learned Additional Government Counsel, contended that the petitioners are complainants and residents of the area, who were aggrieved of illegal mining activity and mining operations as surfaced on surprise inspection as would be evident from material evidence available on record.

8. Learned counsel further pointed out that the writ petition No.820/2018, has been instituted against the State-respondents without impleading any other private respondent(s) with a prayer for an order and/or directions against the erring officers of the Department, who are in collusion with the mining lease holders.

9. In support of his stand, learned counsel relied upon the opinions of the Apex Court of the land, in the case of Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors , (1987) 1 SCC 227. and vice versa, decided on 9th December, 1986, wherein the Supreme Court held that in furtherance of public interest an enquiry into the state of affairs, in Public Interest Lit