Order

26/03/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has initially been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 12.06.2002 and seeking a relief to declare Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Rules, 1986 as ultra vires. However, subsequently, the petitioner preferred an application seeking amendment of the present writ petition, which was allowed and in the amended writ petition following reliefs were prayed for:-

“a) Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with cost;

and b) Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 may kindly be declared ultravires; and c) Impugned show cause notice dt.12/6/2002 and all its subsequent action/orders may also kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate writ or order or directions after summoning relevant records from the respondents;

d) Respondents may further be restrained from taking any action on the basis of so called inspection dt. 19/11/96 and/or 3/7/97 against the petitioner; and e) If during the pendency of this Writ Petition if any action is taken against the petitioner or any order is passed against the petitioner in pursuance/ in continuation of impugned show cause notice dt. 12.6.02 then the same may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential relief; and position may kindly be restored back; and f) May kindly Pass interim order/ direction in terms of the prayers made above during the pendency of the above Writ Petition; and g) That any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which are considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner to do the complete justice with the petitioner.

h) Impugned order ANNEXURE – P/16 (dated 08.01.2003) & order Annexure P/17 and all its subsequent act and proceedings may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

3. Briefly noted the facts involved in the present writ petition are that the present matter involves two rounds of litigation arising out of the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner in relation to mining operations. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner, while undertaking mining operations on the allotted area, was issued show cause notice by the respondent authorities for alleged illegal mining and the order for recovery was passed. The petitioner challenged the earlier issued orders/ show cause notices dated 21.12.1996 & 31.07.1997 by way of filing a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3061/1997. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2001. Against the order dated

20.04.2001, the petitioner preferred a special appeal, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 16.05.2001. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16.05.2001 by way of filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2001, and the matter was remanded back to the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court for reconsideration. Pursuant to the remand order, the Division Bench reconsidered the matter and ultimately allowed the special appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated 09.01.2002. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, remanded the matter back to the respondent authorities with a direction to reconsider the issue and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

In the second round of litigation, despite the clear directions having been issued by the Division Bench, the respondent authorities though reconsidered the matter, but by the impugned order dated 08.01.2003, again imposed the penalty on the same grounds against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.01.2003, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. During pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents gave an undertaking and, therefore, the recovery proceedings were not initiated. However, the stay applicat