Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Ankit Agarwal S/o Shri Surendra Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary To The Government, Mines And Geology Department and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14517 of 2017
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Rule 48, 64, 65 (5) - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Quash order - Extension of mining lease - Unauthorized mining - Order passed by respondent appellate authority may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside - Assistant Mining Engineer has conducted inquiry of mining lease and found that 3654 metric tonnes of mineral has been excavated in an unauthorized manner – Para 10.
Finding of the Court :
Court finds that State had framed Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, Rule 64 whereof, as quoted hereinabove, clearly stated that in respect of any order passed in appeal or otherwise under these rules by any officer, aggrieved party shall file a revision petition before competent authority, within period as stipulated therein - Court finds that Rules of 2017 itself, is a complete code, for dealing with matters pertaining to Mining Lease in State of Rajasthan, which amongst other things, clearly provide for alternative remedy under Rule 64 thereof; and in present case petitioner filed appeal before respondent no.4 Additional Director Mines (Environment Development) Directorate of Mines and Geology, which, as mentioned above, was decided vide impugned order - However, without exhausting alternative remedy under Rules of 2017, petitioner has directly approached Court, which, in given circumstances and Rule position was not appropriate course on part of petitioner.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike.
2. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(ii) The interim order dated 16.08.2017 (An.13) may kindly be declared illegal and same be quashed and set aside;
(iii) The amount so deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the said interim order dated 16.08.2017 (An.13) (under protest) may kindly be ordered to be refunded to the petitioners;
(iv) The demand notice dated 01.06.2017 (Annexure-8) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside;
(v) The respondent authorities may be directed to complete the process of extension of the mining lease in the favour of the petitioner and to execute the rider agreement;
(vi) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and
(vii) Award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner against the respondents.”
3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, a mining lease (for mineral rhyolite – masonry stone – near Village Modibhakari Kharda, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali) was granted in favour of one Smt. Vidhya Devi w.e.f. 24.11.1995, for a period of 20 years. The said mining lease was mutated in favour of the petitioner on count of death of the said Smt. Vidhya Devi; an agreement was accordingly executed in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.2012.
3.1. The petitioner had applied for renewal of the mining lease on 04.11.2015, which is said to be pending; the petitioner had also applied for extension of the period of mining lease (from 24.11.2015 for ten years on 31.01.2014, and for the said purpose, the respondent no.3 had received the spot report dated 13.03.2014 from the concerned Mines Foreman, to the effect that the petitioner has not conducted any unauthorized mining within last three years, outside the lease area.
3.2. However, the respondent no.3 on 14.10.2015 issued a notice inter alia mentioning therein that the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City had conducted enquiry about the boundaries of the mining lease of the petitioner on 04.09.2015, whereupon it was found that 3654 metric tonnes of mineral has been excavated in an unauthorized manner, outside the A-B boundary line, which was violative of Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, and thus, directed the petitioner to explain, within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of such notice, as to why ten times royalty be not recovered from him. The petitioner vide letter dated 04.11.2015 submitted a reply stating therein that neither copy of panchmana nor the alleged enquiry report has been supplied to him, nor the alleged unauthorized excavation has been disclosed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for copies of the panchnama and the inquiry report under the Right to Information Act and the respondent no.3 supplied the copy of said panchnama dated 04.09.2015.
3.3. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 23.12.2015 before the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance), Jaipur for, among other things, cancellation of the aforementioned show cause notice. Thereafter, the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance), Jaipur vide letter dated 29.12.2015 considered the aforesaid representation and declined to accept the enquiry report and also directed that the enquiry be conducted by the Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur.
3.4. The respondent no.3 on the basis of the aforesaid direction, addressed a letter dated 30.12.2015 to the respondent no.2, that since re-inquiry has been thought proper in the five matters, including that of the present petitioner, further proceedings should be kept pending. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 03.02.2016 directed to the Superintending Mining Enginee
The court emphasized the importance of considering extenuating circumstances, such as the petitioner's medical condition, and held that arbitrary decisions without due consideration are not permissib....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in administrative actions, particularly the right to a hearing and jurisdictional limits post-mineral classification changes.
Rule 18 (21) of Rules, 1986, which provide for alternate consequences of breach of conditions of lease.
The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available if alternative remedies exist, and exhausting statutory remedies is mandatory before judicial intervention.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to lease conditions and highlighted that sympathy or mercy cannot override the terms and conditions of a lease agreement.
State Government framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
