[2025:RJ-JD:21015]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7654/2025 M/s Sambhav Hytech Cements Private Ltd., Gang House, Near SBBJ, In Front Of Nagar Parishad, Bhopal Ganj, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Through Sanjay Gang S/o Late Shri Tejmal Gang, Age About 50 Years, -Gang Bhawan, Near Jaswant Talkies, Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 311001.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Bhilwara.

4. Senior Audit Officer, A.M.G.-III, Auditor General Office (Audit-II), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Vyas (Shrimali)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Pareek Mr. Aditya Gupta JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

02/05/2025

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-7), whereby he has been called upon by the respondent No.3 to pay a sum of Rs.2,42,88,000/- on the basis of the audit objection.

2. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the demand notice/communication dated 27.03.2025 is per-se illegal, arbitrary and violative of petitioner’s fundamental right, inasmuch as the respondents have simply raised demand against the petitioner on the basis of the audit objection that has been raised by the Office of the Auditor General.

3. While inviting Court’s attention towards the approved scheme of mining, learned counsel submitted that the respondent - Mining Department while approving the mining plan has showed the excavation of 41600 ton and 34300 ton for the years 2018- 2019 and 2019-2020 and asserted that on such excavated mineral, the petitioner has already paid the royalty.

4. Learned counsel argued that since the royalty on the excavated mineral has already been paid, the respondents’ action of issuing demand notice is not only illegal, but also arbitrary. He further argued that demand notice which was issued without even giving copy of the audit report to the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice.

5. Mr. Lalit Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Mining Department, firstly, submitted that the writ petition is premature, inasmuch as only a notice has been issued to the petitioner and without even filing the reply, he has rushed to the High Court.

6. Mr. Pareek, thereafter, took the Court through the provision contained in Rule 28(2)(iv)(b) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2017’) and submitted that the amount in question has been demanded by the respondents as the petitioner had carried out excavation even during the period, which had been showed as lapsed year.

7. He further contended that the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017 and therefore, if petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 27.03.2025, he should approach the appellate forum.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. So far as preliminary objection regarding right of appeal is concerned, this Court is of the view that since the communication/

notice is fundamentally contrary to principles of natural justice, the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail remedy of appeal, as a huge amount has been ordered to be recovered from him.

10. It is a settled position of law that the when the principles of natural justice have been infracted and the order impugned is fundamentally without jurisdiction, the High Court can issue appropriate writ.

11. Perusal of the communication dated 27.03.2025 impugned in this petition reveals that the same is entirely based upon audit objection raised by the Office of the Auditor General and the respondent – Mining Engineer has asked the petitioner to comply with the demand notice within a period of 30 days.

12. True it is, that reference of