ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed challenging notice dated 04.12.2025, whereby petitioner has been called upon to submit explanation regarding demand of penalty amount to the tune of Rs.68,32,89,120/- proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner regarding alleged illegal mining based on drone survey report.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that mining lease No.3A/2006 was granted in favour of the petitioner regarding mineral Red Ochre, Laterite, Bauxite and China Clay, in the year 1986 which is extended up to 2037. It is contended that petitioner is having all the required permissions/clearance/consents and has undertaken the mining activity strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that respondent authorities have intimated the petitioner and got conducted a drone survey on 04.10.2025, through private agency. It is further contended that without verifying the veracity of said drone survey, impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging illegal mining by the petitioner and a huge demand of Rs.68,32,89,120/- was raised against the petitioner.

2.2 Counsel for the petitioner stated that in spite of availability of better, well established and more precise techniques, the inspection has been conducted through drone survey by a private agency. It is stated that even the copy of drone survey report has not been supplied to the petitioner, which is the sole basis of the notice of recovery issued to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, representing respondent Department, AAG Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi stated that drone survey constitutes the most scientific and reliable methodology for conducting the survey. It is further contended that the relevant details/particulars of the survey report have already been duly mentioned in the notice impugned. Hence, furnishing the complete drone survey report is not necessary.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the drone survey report constitutes the sole incriminating material relied upon against the petitioner and non-supply thereof amounts to a clear denial of a fair opportunity to submit his defence and effectively rebut the said report. It is further mere selective reproduction of some details of the said so called drone survey report is not sufficient as various substantial and essential particulars, including the precise longitude and latitude coordinates of the entire area in question, have not been disclosed in the impugned notice and such details can be ascertained only from the drone survey report itself. It is stated that since the show cause notice in itself is incomplete and laconic, the same being violative of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

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

6. In considered view of this Court, non-disclosure of adverse material to the petitioner, fundamentally denies an effective hearing, as enshrined in the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice. Without access to the precise data as mentioned in the said drone survey report underpinning the allegations, the petitioner remains bereft of any meaningful opportunity to contest veracity of the countervailing evidence. The same strikes at the root of procedural fairness and therefore, renders the resultant notice arbitrary.

7. This Hon’ble High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9670/2024; Meghraj Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., has held that in consonance with the principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the State authorities to furnish a copy of the material sought to be relied upon against a person, so as to enable him to effectively defend himself. The same was relied upon in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12398/2024; Abhimanyu Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12110/2024; Paras Devi v. State of Rajasthan. The relevant paragraphs of Meghr