Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Dilip Singh (Since died), S/o. Ganga Singh, through his legal representatives & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2720, 1325, 2908 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.L.R. Vyas.
For the Respondent: Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, Mr. Arvind Vyas.

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that mining authorities have the right to impose penalties for illegal mining activities based on evidence collected during inspections, and that due process must be followed in administrative proceedings, which was upheld in this case.

Headnote:
MINING - QUARRY LICENCE AND ILLEGAL MINING - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986; MMDR Act, 1957 - The court discussed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, particularly Rule 48, which pertains to illegal mining activities, and the MMDR Act, 1957, specifically Section 4(1)(1A) and Section 21, which impose penalties for unauthorized mining. The court interpreted these provisions to emphasize the necessity of adhering to legal mining practices and the consequences of violations. The court found that the petitioners had engaged in illegal mining activities beyond their licensed area, leading to the dismissal of their writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, legal representatives of Sh. Dilip Singh, challenged orders regarding illegal mining activities associated with Quarry Licence No.215/A. They claimed compliance with mining regulations and contested the validity of inspections and penalties imposed by mining authorities, asserting violations of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were involved in illegal mining activities beyond the licensed area, as evidenced by the 'Mauka Panchnama' and subsequent inspections. The court noted that the petitioners failed to adequately challenge the findings of illegal mining and did not provide satisfactory explanations for their actions.
Issues: Whether the orders imposing penalties for illegal mining were valid and whether the petitioners were afforded due process in the administrative proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mining authorities acted within their jurisdiction under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the MMDR Act, as the evidence supported findings of illegal mining. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with mining regulations and the legal consequences of violations.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the orders passed by the mining authorities and the penalties imposed for illegal mining activities.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

[Civil Writ Petition No. 2720/2022]

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Sh. Dilip Singh, the original allottee, who was allotted Quarry Licence No.215/A, challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.6) passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. The petitioners have also assailed the recovery proceedings initiated by Mining Department and prayed to declare the same illegal, arbitrary being violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that a Quarry Licence No.215/A came to be issued in favour of Sh. Dilip Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives in Village Gunawati Range, Makrana, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur on 08.07.1985 for mineral marble. In the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that the they are proceeding with mining operations strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the conditions of the quarry licence.

3. The petitioners have asserted in the writ petition, that the mine of the petitioners was inspected by Mines Foreman, Makrana on 07.10.2010 pursuant to notices dated 18.08.2010 & 23.09.2010 and ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) was prepared qua petitioners’ QL No.215/A. It is alleged that the said ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) dated 07.10.2010 was prepared in absence of the petitioner and no prior information/notice was ever issued to the petitioners for conducting of the site inspection and further the said ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) does not bear the signature of the petitioner, or record the presence of petitioner or their representative. On the basis of the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4), the Mining Engineer, Makrana issued a notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1) narrating the fact of conducting of site inspection by mining authorities and allegation of mining activities being done illegally and that too outside the mining area allotted to the petitioner/Original lease Holder were levelled and thus proceedings under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules, 1986 (‘Rules of 1986’) would be undertaken. Thus, by way of said notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1), the petitioner was asked to submit reply within fifteen days, failing which ex-parte proceedings would be drawn against the petitioner under Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986.

4. On receipt of the notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1), the petitioner submitted their reply on 16.11.2010 (Annex.2) while stating that no illegal mining operations were being committed by them and so far as mining activities beyond the mining area, if any noticed or found, to which the petitioners were not at all concerned. The petitioners in the reply stated that no mining activities are being undertaken on the disputed area since 2001 and the illegal mining activities are being done by some other persons. The petitioners further alleged that they were not supplied copy of the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4).

5. According to petitioners, without adverting to the reply (Annex.2) submitted by the petitioners, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana proceeded to pass order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and observed that site inspection was conducted on 07.10.2010 and found petitioner’s involvement in the illegal mining. The Assistant Engineer, Makrana vide order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) has imposed penalty of Rs.32,111/- upon the petitioner.

6. Being appalled by order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3), Sh. Dilip Singh (original allottee) preferred a revision petition, which was registered as Revision No.04/2011 before the Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur.

7. In the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that during pendency of the revision, original allottee Sh. Dilip Singh expired and, therefore, an application (Annex.7) un