Issuing a notice that effectively determines liability without due process violates the principles of natural justice, making the notice invalid.

ORDER :

1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the mauka-parcha/Panchnama dated 14.01.2024 (Annex.7), order/letter dated 19.07.2024 (Annex.8) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the mauka-parcha dated 14.01.2024 (Annex. 70 may also be declared illegal and the same may also be quashed and set aside.

3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioner in relation to the order dated 14.01.2024 (Annex.7), order/letter dated 19.07.2024 (Annex. 8).

4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Challenging the impugned recovery notice, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that recovery proceedings as per provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 have been initiated against petitioner pursuant to original notice/order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-10). He further submitted that though said communication is titled as ‘notice’ in substance and effect it partakes the character of a final order, whereby the petitioner has been declared guilty of illegal mining and has been directed to deposit the penalty amount within a period of three days.

2.1. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that an inspection was carried out and the issue was decided in absence of the petitioner, without serving any prior notice upon him. He further argued that even while issuing the impugned communication/order dated 30.01.2024, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, nor was the procedure prescribed under law adhered to.

3. While controverting the aforesaid submissions, counsel for respondents, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that notices impugned in the present writ petition are in the nature of show cause notices, therefore, writ petition challenging such show cause notices is not maintainable.

3.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-department submitted that it was open to the petitioner to submit a reply to the said notice; however, without availing the said remedy and without adhering to the prescribed procedure, the present writ petition has been filed directly before this Court.

3.2. Learned counsel for respondent further contended that even if it is assumed that impugned notices partake the character of an order, an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the provisions of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“Rules of 2017”). On this ground as well, it was argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable.

3.3. Moreover, counsel for respondent submitted that the impugned notices are based upon a valid inspection and therefore, the recovery notices are absolutely just and valid.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. So far as the objection raised by respondent-department regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against a show cause notice is concerned, this Court finds that although the communication dated 30.01.2024 is titled as a “notice”, the contents thereof reveal otherwise. By the said communication, the petitioner has already been declared guilty of illegal mining and has been specifically directed to deposit the penalty amount within a period of three days, failing which recovery t