Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since common questions of law arise in these writ petitions with marginal variation on facts which do not impinge of the fundamentals of the challenge made in each of these petitions, these petitions are being decided by this common order. However, for the disposal of this bunch of seven petitions, the facts in the case of Deewa Construction Product Industry, SBCWP No.2602/2012, are being considered.

2. A challenge has been laid in SBCWP No.2602/2012 to the order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Mines Engineer, Alwar holding that with reference to rawannas utilized by the petitioner, on the inspection of the pits for the excavation of the masonry stone in the mining lease area of the petitioner, it appeared that the petitioner had excavated / transported masonry stone much in excess of the excavated masonry stone consequent to which it appeared that the excess masonry stone transported albeit under rawannas issued by the Department was sourced from unauthorised mining activity and consequently the petitioner was liable to pay ten times royalty on masonry stone as penalty in respect of 1,63,842.5 tonnes of masonry stone.

3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.1.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document