Key Points from the Judgment The writ petition under Article 226 challenges the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2, seeking to set it aside with consequential directions. (!) (!) [1] The controversy is covered by a prior order dated 07.10.2023 in SBCWP No.9763/2014, where the court quashed similar orders due to failure to provide opportunity of hearing under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960, non-consideration of extension application within time limit, and ignoring medical conditions. [2] Respondents failed to afford mandatory opportunity of hearing under Rule 18(21)(a) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; notice dated 05.05.2014 claimed but not proven served, while earlier notice dated 29.06.2010 was replied to. [3][8][9][10][11] No inspection after notice dated 29.06.2010, and cancellation order dated 26.08.2014 issued after four years alleging violations. [3][4] Mineral (Quartz) converted from major to minor via notification dated 10.02.2015, depriving revisional authority (Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines) of jurisdiction to pass impugned order under Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. [4][12] Petitioner's medical condition (major heart surgery) prevented mine operations, but not considered by respondents. [5][13] Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 requires notice to remedy default within 60 days before determining lease. [9] (!) (!) Rule 18(21)(a) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 mandates 15 days' notice to remedy breach before determination or penalty not exceeding twice annual dead rent. [10] (!) Impugned order quashed due to procedural non-compliance, lack of jurisdiction post-conversion, and non-consideration of medical issues; respondents at liberty to impose penalty not exceeding twice advance dead rent from 2019, to be determined within three months. [14] Writ petition allowed; stay and pending applications disposed of. [14][15]

Shyam Siroya vs Union of India - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 1164

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1164

NUPUR BHATI
Shyam Siroya – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Sandhu with Mr. Chirag Kalani and Lokesh Menaria.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G. and Mr. D.S. Jasol.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Judgment

The writ petition under Article 226 challenges the impugned order dated 06.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2, seeking to set it aside with consequential directions. (!) (!) [1]
The controversy is covered by a prior order dated 07.10.2023 in SBCWP No.9763/2014, where the court quashed similar orders due to failure to provide opportunity of hearing under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960, non-consideration of extension application within time limit, and ignoring medical conditions. [2]
Respondents failed to afford mandatory opportunity of hearing under Rule 18(21)(a) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; notice dated 05.05.2014 claimed but not proven served, while earlier notice dated 29.06.2010 was replied to. [3][8][9][10][11]
No inspection after notice dated 29.06.2010, and cancellation order dated 26.08.2014 issued after four years alleging violations. [3][4]
Mineral (Quartz) converted from major to minor via notification dated 10.02.2015, depriving revisional authority (Joint Secretary, Ministry of Mines) of jurisdiction to pass impugned order under Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. [4][12]
Petitioner's medical condition (major heart surgery) prevented mine operations, but not considered by respondents. [5][13]
Rule 27(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 requires notice to remedy default within 60 days before determining lease. [9] (!) (!)
Rule 18(21)(a) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 mandates 15 days' notice to remedy breach before determination or penalty not exceeding twice annual dead rent. [10] (!)
Impugned order quashed due to procedural non-compliance, lack of jurisdiction post-conversion, and non-consideration of medical issues; respondents at liberty to impose penalty not exceeding twice advance dead rent from 2019, to be determined within three months. [14]
Writ petition allowed; stay and pending applications disposed of. [14][15]

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs :-

(ii) the respondent State of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to decide the revision petition (Annex-11) filed by the petitioner independently and expeditiously without being influenced by the order dated 06.07.2018 (Annex 12)

(iii) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 07.10.2023 passed in SBCWP No.9763/2014 : Smt. Chandra Kala Bilochi v. The Union of India and Ors. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder :-