Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 138

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Smt. Bhanwari Devi, W/o Chaturam - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Vyas
For the Respondent: Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Mr. Lalit Pareek

Mandatory notice before cancellation of a quarry licence must be properly served to ensure compliance with natural justice principles, or the cancellation is legally void.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - Rules 28(3)(x) and 86 - Cancellation of quarry licence - The court found that the cancellation occurred without the mandatory thirty days' notice, violating principles of natural justice and improper service - The appellate authority's decision was deemed unreasoned and a mechanical disposal contrary to the requirement for transparency and reasoning in administrative actions. (Paras 6, 8, 10)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement to afford an opportunity to the affected party before cancellation of the quarry licence is fundamental, and any decision made without such opportunity is legally indefensible. (Paras 7.5, 10.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was issued a quarry licence, but it was cancelled due to alleged non-payment of lease rent; however, the petitioner contended that proper notice was never served. The orders of cancellation were challenged as being made without adherence to statutory protocols.

Findings of Court:
The court established that the notice for cancellation was served to an incorrect address and thus declared the cancellation orders void.

Issues: The main issues involved the validity of the notice served and whether the requirements for cancellation of a quarry licence were followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements renders the cancellation void, and reasons must be provided by appellate authorities when making decisions that affect rights.

Result: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to quarry licence cancellation (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner argues against violation of rules (Para 3)
3. respondents assert proper procedure followed (Para 4)
4. court's analysis on notice requirements (Para 5 , 6)
5. critique of non-reasoned appellate authority's decision (Para 7 , 8)
6. decision reinforcing need for procedural fairness (Para 9)
7. restoration of quarry licence with future compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. Present writ petition is filed challenging order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Balesar cancelling the quarry licence issued in favour of petitioner, so also order dated 11.12.2019 passed by Additional Director, Environment & Health, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur, dismissing appeal preferred by petitioner against cancellation of his quarry licence.

2. Explaining facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner states that quarry licence No. 321, Village Somanada, Tehsil Balesar was transferred and approved in favour of petitioner on 04.06.2012. Since thereafter, petitioner has continuously been undertaking mining activities upon the area in question.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has always undertaken mining activities in compliance with the provisions of law. However, petitioner has been served with order dated 16.08.2018 wherein it was mentioned that even after the fifteen days’ notice dated 06.05.2014, petitioner has not deposited lease rent, hence, quarry licence issued in favor of petitioner was cancelled, in exercise of powers under Rule 28(3) (x) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017

( “Rules of 2017”)

2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that order dated 16.08.2018 was assailed by petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017, on the ground that the impugned order for cancellation of quarry licence has been passed without following the statutory requirement of mandatory thirty days’ notice as provided under Rule 28(3)(x) of the Rules of 2017. It is also contended that service of notice dated 06.05.2014 has not been effected upon petitioner in the manner mandated under Rule 86 of the Rules of 2017, and that the order of cancellation was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

2.3 Appellate authority – Additional Director, Environment & Health, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur, vide its order dated 11.12.2019, dismissed appeal preferred by petitioner and upheld the order dated 16.08.2018, passed by respondent No. 4.

2.4 Challenging the orders dated 11.12.2019 and 16.08.2018, present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that order of cancellation of quarry licence is in clear violation of the provisions of Rules of 2017, so also in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

3.1 It is contended that initial notice dated 06.05.2014 was issued to a wrong address and the same was never served upon petitioner. Respondent–authorities after a lapse of four years, without granting any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, cancelled the quarry licence, which is not justified in any manner.

3.2 It is contended that appellate authority has proceeded in a pre-determined manner and, without considering and adjudicating the grounds of appeal, dismissed the same by way of a non-speaking and unreasoned order.

3.3 Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 06.11.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14717 of 2017 (M/s Sojat Lime Company vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which came to be affirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Appl. Writ No. 200/2019 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/s Sojat Lime Company)

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that cancellation of quarry licence of petitioner is in consonance with the provisions of Rules of 2017 as the petitioner had been gui