HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR Sahti W/o Late Sh. Rujdar Khan, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Chinawada, Tehsil-Pahadi, District-Deeg (Rajasthan) Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Hasam Khan S/o Sh. Rujdar Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Chinawada, Tehsil-Pahadi, District-Deeg (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Directorate Of Mines And Geology Rajasthan, Through The Additional Director, Mines And Geology, Kota Range, Kota.

3. Department Of Mines And Geology-Bharatpur, Circle Through The Supdt. Mining Engineer Bharatpur, Situated At Khanij Bhawan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

4. Department Of Mines And Geology-Bharatpur, Through The Mining Engineer Bharatpur, Situated At Khanij Bhawan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. David Mehla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

16/03/2026 The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur, vide which a demand of Rs. 07,58,40,800/- has been raised against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Sahti vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., vide which the respondents were specifically directed to pass an order in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 24.06.2025 after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in her reply has been considered while passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reply submitted by her raised umpteen grounds on the basis of which the show cause notice itself was bad in law, including the fact that the provisions for quantification of the alleged excavated mineral no longer survive in the eye of law. However, none of the said grounds have been considered and thus, not only is the impugned order bad in law, but it is also in violation of the directions issued by this Court on 10.09.2025.

Learned counsel further submits that the report of the inspection carried out by the respondents on 15.01.2026 has also not been made available to the petitioner.

Considering the above, issue notice to the respondents, returnable within six weeks.

Mr. Rahul Lodha, learned counsel, puts in appearance on behalf of all the respondents.

Hence, service is complete.

He prays for and is granted time to complete his instructions. List the matter on 19.03.2026, in the category ‘for fresh admission’.

Till the next date, the effect and operation of an order dated

20.01.2026 shall remain stayed.

However, learned counsel for the respondents would be at liberty to file an application seeking modification/vacation of the said order, if so advised. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /7