1. Petition challenging show cause notice demanding penalty for alleged illegal mining based on drone survey report without supplying report to petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Mohd. Sabeer Khan S/o Gulbaj Khan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3778 of 2026
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Important Points
The non-supply of an incriminating survey report used as the basis for a show cause notice violates the principle of audi alteram partem and the principles of natural justice, rendering the notice arbitrary and unsustainable.
Subject
Administrative Law - Natural Justice
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Non-supply of incriminating material used as the sole basis for a show cause notice, such as a survey report, constitutes a denial of a fair opportunity to submit a defense and effectively rebut the allegations - Mere selective reproduction of details from such a report is insufficient if essential particulars required for verification are missing - Such action renders the notice arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 6, 10)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition against a show cause notice - A writ petition is maintainable where the notice is without jurisdiction, issued in denial of principles of natural justice, or issued with premeditation. (Para 11)
(C) Mining Regulations - Adherence to departmental circulars mandating prior notice before inspection and the subsequent supply of the inspection report to the lessee is compulsory to ensure transparency and fairness. (Paras 9, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice demanding a significant penalty for alleged illegal mining based on a drone survey report conducted by a private agency. The respondent authorities had not supplied the full survey report to the petitioner, providing only selective particulars within the notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the non-disclosure of the adverse material fundamentally denied the petitioner an effective hearing. The failure to provide the full report prevented the petitioner from contesting the veracity of the evidence, which is a violation of procedural fairness and the respondent's own internal guidelines.
Issues: Whether the issuance of a show cause notice based on a survey report without providing a copy of the said report to the affected party violates the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The non-supply of the survey report constitutes a breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. Since the report is the sole incriminating material, the affected party must have access to the complete data to effectively defend themselves. Selective reproduction of facts is inadequate for a meaningful hearing.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned show cause notice quashed and set aside.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition against a show cause notice - A writ petition is maintainable where the notice is without jurisdiction, issued in denial of principles of natural justice, or issued with premeditation. (Para 11)
(C) Mining Regulations - Adherence to departmental circulars mandating prior notice before inspection and the subsequent supply of the inspection report to the lessee is compulsory to ensure transparency and fairness. (Paras 9, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice demanding a significant penalty for alleged illegal mining based on a drone survey report conducted by a private agency. The respondent authorities had not supplied the full survey report to the petitioner, providing only selective particulars within the notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the non-disclosure of the adverse material fundamentally denied the petitioner an effective hearing. The failure to provide the full report prevented the petitioner from contesting the veracity of the evidence, which is a violation of procedural fairness and the respondent's own internal guidelines.
Issues: Whether the issuance of a show cause notice based on a survey report without providing a copy of the said report to the affected party violates the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The non-supply of the survey report constitutes a breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. Since the report is the sole incriminating material, the affected party must have access to the complete data to effectively defend themselves. Selective reproduction of facts is inadequate for a meaningful hearing.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned show cause notice quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Arvind Vyas, Amit Vyas
For the Respondents: Mahaveer Bishnoi, Gaurav Bishnoi
For the Appellants : Arvind Vyas, Amit Vyas
For the Respondents: Mahaveer Bishnoi, Gaurav Bishnoi
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends non-supply of drone survey report violates natural justice; respondent argues notice contains sufficient particulars and survey methodology is reliable. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Non-disclosure of adverse material denies effective hearing; mere selective reproduction insufficient; repeated violations by authorities deprecated; directions to Principal Secretary issued. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. State authorities must furnish copy of material relied upon against a person to enable effective defence, per audi alteram partem principle. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Writ allowed; impugned show cause notice quashed; liberty granted to issue fresh notice with complete drone survey report; directions for compliance with MMCR and circular. (Para 12 , 20 )
6. Is non-supply of a drone survey report to the noticee a violation of principles of natural justice?
Yes, non-disclosure of adverse material forming the basis of allegations denies effective hearing, violating audi alteram partem, rendering the notice arbitrary and unsustainable. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
7. Is a writ petition against a show cause notice maintainable when it violates natural justice?
Yes, a writ petition is maintainable where the notice is without jurisdiction, in denial of natural justice, or issued with premeditation, as held in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. (Para 11 )
8. What safeguards must authorities follow before conducting drone surveys or inspections?
Authorities must issue prior notice, conduct inspection in presence of lessee or representative, and furnish copy of inspection/survey report when issuing any legal notice, per circular dated 06.03.2025. (Para 9 , 17 , 18 )
9. What consequences follow from repeated non-compliance with natural justice by mining authorities?
Repeated violations warrant deprecation and direction to Principal Secretary to issue comprehensive guidelines and enforce accountability for deviations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
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 Meg
