TYAGI, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by Shivchand to challenge the validity of the order of the Collector, Ganganagar, dated 1st November, 1961 directing the Tehsildar to attach the brickkiln and the bricks lying at the spot belonging to the petitioner.

2. Petitioner Shivchand was permitted by the Panchayat Ridmalsar vide its resolution No. 3 dated 30th November, 1960 (Ex. 1) to construct a brick-kiln and to prepare the bricks by digging the brick earth from Killas Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Murabba No. 72, Chak No. 60 LNP situate in the Abadi areas within the jurisdiction of that Panchayat. After having obtained the said permission, the petitioner applied to the Mining Department for granting mining lease for quarrying brick earth from the said area which was allotted to the petitioner by the Panchayat. The Assistant Engineer, Mines and Geology, Bikaner, granted the requisite permission under R. 57(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. to quarry the brick earth from Killas Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 20 in Square No. 72 (vide document Ex. 2 dated 25th October, 1961.).. In pursuance of the said permission, a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and Mining Engineer on the 25th October, 1961. This lease agreement is placed on record as Ex. 3. According to the terms of this agreement, the petitioner was to pay Rs. 96/- as dead rent and -,/4/- per ton or Rs. 1/- per thousand bricks as royalty. It is alleged that the petitioner paid Rs. 584.86 NP. as royalty to the Mining Department on 14th September, 1961. The Tehsildar, Padampur on receipt of a complaint from one Rameshwarlal Gupta submitted his report on 7th October 1961, to the Collector, Ganganagar that the petitioner had put up his brick-kiln without permission and, therefore, appropriate action may be taken against him. The Collector on receipt of the said report directed the Tehsildar on 1st Nov., 1961 (Vide Ex. 5, to attach the petitioners brick-kiln and the bricks manufactured by him which may be lying at the spot. In pursuance to this order of the Collector, the Tehsildar attached the petitioners kiln as well as the bricks. Representations were, however, made against this alleged illegal attachment to the Collector whereupon the Collector, by his order dated 31st January, 1962, allowed the petitioner to bake his Kutcha bricks and on 30th of July, 1962, the bricks were ordered to be released from attachment provided the petitioner furnished security to the exent of the value of the bricks so that the Government may forfeit the security amount if the attachment of the bricks was declared to be legal by the authorities. It may, however, be mentioned here that the lease granted to the petitioner by the Mining department meanwhile expired and he obtained another lease and a fresh permission from the department concerned to manufacture the bricks upto 31st March, 1963.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was holding a valid permission for quarrying the brick earth and for manufacturing the bricks both from the Panchayat and the mining department and he had invested a capital on this undertaking to the extent of about Rs. 25,000/-, but the Collector without any jurisdiction restrained the petitioner from manufacturing the bricks and baking the same in the kiln. This interference by the Collector, according to the petitioner, caused a substantial loss and harassment to him and that the Collector, Ganganagar had no business to interfere with the petitioners work of quarrying brick earth and preparing bricks, especially when he was holding a valid permission from the mining department under the rules which prescribed for the grant of the mining leases. In these circumstances, it is prayed by the petitioner that the Collector, Ganganagar, may be prohibited by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to interfere with the petitioners right to quarry brick earth and manufacture bricks i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document