The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to quash and set aside orders that are contrary to the law and to grant liberty to parties to file representations and proceed in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

(i) That the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 (Annex.11) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That all the subsequent proceedings initiated in pursuance of order dated 28.12.2018 (Annex.11) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by the Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Rajasthan, Chittorgarh wherein it was categorically stated that the mining done by the petitioner did not come in the definition of illegal mining and that after 2010 the mining which has been done by the petitioner shall not come in the definition of illegal mining but the impugned orders dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-10) passed by Superintending Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur and order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Chittorgarh, Rajasthan did not afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and while holding that the petitioner has conducted illegal mining, a demand notice of Rs.5,59,827,40/- has been raised. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a submission that the impugned orders dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-10) and 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) are contrary to the stand of the Additional Director (Mines), Mines And Geology Department Rajasthan, Udaipur vide its letter dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure-17) wherein the petitioner has been held to be not falling in the definition of conducting illegal mining. The relevant part of the letter dated 26.06.2018(Annexure-17) reads as under:-

^^,e,elhvkj 1986 ds fu;e 15 ds vuqlkj dksbZ iV~Vk/kkjh fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds [kuu iV~Vs dks lcysV] eksjxst vFkok VªkaLkQj ugh dj ldrk gS vFkkZr~ ;fn iV~Vs/kkjh us fcuk foHkkx dh vuqefr ds [kuu iV~Vk cspku dk jkbMj ,sxzhesaV dj fn;k vr% bl nks"k ds fy;s [kuu iV~Vk [kf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSA jkbMj ,sxzhesaV ds i'pkr ,oa [kuu iV~Vk [kf.Mr gksus ds iwoZ tks Hkh [kuu dk;Z gqvk gS og lafonk fu’iknu ds rgr gqvk gS ,oa [kuu dk;Z Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vk {ks= esa gh gqvk gSA vr% fu;ekuqlkj mls voS/k [kuu ugha dgk tk ldrkA^^

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-department is not in a position to refute the same however, draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 17.05.2023 passed in SBCWP No.1194/2019 wherein the present petitioner had given challenge to the certain orders and the prayer is reproduced hereunder:-

”(i) That the order dated 15.12.2016 and 16.01.2910 (Annex.-10 & 11) may be declared illegal and mining lease No.79/15 issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annex.01) may be allowed to grant in force and the petitioner may be permitted for mining in the authorized area; and

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-department further submits that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the relevant portion of the abovesaid order is reproduced hereunder:-

“(18) This Court observes that the petitioner and the private respondent were having a prolonged dispute in regard to the power of attorney and the agreement entered amongst themselves which were in respect to the mining lease in-question. The short point involved in the controversy is that such agreement between the parties will constitute violation of the lease conditions and debarment of the parties to continue with the mining lease in contravention of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1986. The analogy drawn from the record reflects contravention of Rule 15. The concurrent finding arrived by