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.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

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

"(i) the impugned order dated 06.07.2028 (Annex-12) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside with all consequential directions.

(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 :-

"12. As per the provisions or Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960, It is mandatory for the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, in the present case, if the notices has not been served upon the petitioner, then, the petitioner has been deprived of such opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, if the statement of the respondents that the petitioner was duly served upon notice dated 25.03.20211, is believed, then, the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) was within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Rule 26(3) of the Rules of 1960. The impugned order dated 07.07.2011, further reflects that the said application filed by the petitioner has not been duly considered while revoking the sanction of mining lease. Also, the Revisional Authority in its order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11), has failed to consider the aspect; firstly, that the petitioner was willing to make compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010 and secondly, that the petitioner had filed an application for extension of time well within a period of 30 days from the date of notice dated 25.03.2011 and further, the medical record and the illness suffered by the petitioner, has also not duly been considered by the respondents.

13. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed, particularly when the petitioner had duly deposited the advance dead rent for a period of six months on 09.06.2010 and the petitioner had also purchased the non-judicial stamp, worth Rs.1,200/- and had duly submitted the application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) for extension of time for compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010 and on account of serious illness, the petitioner could not make compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010.

14. The impugned orders dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11), passed by the Mining Department and the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by the Directorate of Mines & Geology, Udaipur, are hereby, quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

15. The respondents would be at liberty to impose penalty, not exceeding twice the amount of advance dead rent upon the petitioner w.e.f. order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-1) and the terms laid down therein. The said amount of advance dead rent, shall be determined within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the petitioner shall deposit the said amount within one month thereafter.

16. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Stay application as well as all other pending applications are disposed of accordingly.

17. No order as to costs."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, the respondents while passing the impugned order, failed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing which is mandatory as per Rule 18 (21) (a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as well as Rule 27 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. He further submits that as the respondents passed an order dated 26.0