The failure of an administrative authority to consider a submitted reply and the conduct of inspections without notice or the participation of the affected party constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting penalty order unsustainable.

Order

24/03/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent department, whereby penalty of ₹18,94,250 has been imposed upon the petitioner on the ground of alleged illegal mining.

2. While elucidating the facts of the present case, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner holds a mining lease bearing M.L. No.400/05 situated at Khasra No. 304, Halka Parbatsar, admeasuring 10,000 square metres. It is submitted that the petitioner’s brother, namely Mr. Baluram, lodged a complaint dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure-1) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, regarding illegal mining being carried out in the vicinity of the petitioner’s lease area. Pursuant thereto, on the same date, the SDO, Parbatsar directed the Tehsildar, Parbatsar, the SHO, Parbatsar, and the Mining Engineer, Makrana to take appropriate action on the said complaint.

2.1 He further submits that respondents issued a notice dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-2) to petitioner alleging illegal mining beyond the limits of her mining lease area. In response thereto, petitioner submitted a reply dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-3), inter alia denying the allegations of illegal mining and stated that, on an earlier occasion as well, a complaint had been lodged before the SDO, Parbatsar regarding illegal mining being carried out by other persons in the vicinity of petitioner’s lease area. The petitioner also requested that a detailed inquiry be conducted in this regard and that notice dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-2) be quashed.

2.2 To petitioner’s utter surprise, respondent–Mining Engineer issued a subsequent notice dated 01.02.2024 in the name of Shri Gopiram Jhakhar, petitioner’s deceased husband, alleging illegal mining and proposing imposition of penalty of ₹18,74,250. In response, petitioner submitted detailed reply (Annexure-5), which was received by respondent on 22.02.2024, inter alia stating that one Mr. Prakash Kheria, resident of Parbatsar, had been carrying out illegal mining on government land in the vicinity of petitioner’s lease area for a considerable period using heavy machinery, and that pursuant to the complaint dated 07.01.2021 and FIR had already been registered against him. It was further pointed out that proceedings initiated against petitioner’s husband, was wholly untenable, as he had passed away on 22.10.2015 and no legal proceedings could be sustained against a deceased person.

2.3 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that, in relation to the FIR lodged against Mr. Prakash Kheria for illegal mining, police authorities after conducting a detailed investigation, have filed a charge-sheet and prima facie found him guilty of carrying out illegal mining in the vicinity of the petitioner’s lease area.

2.4 It is further contended that despite submission of a detailed reply dated 14.02.2024 to the notice dated 01.02.2024, the same was not considered by respondent No.5, who erroneously proceeded on the premise that no reply had been filed. Consequently, the alleged non-submission of reply was treated as an admission of illegal mining on the part of the petitioner and penalty of ₹18,94,250 was imposed vide office order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure-8).

2.5 Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner contended that the same is wholly arbitrary and unjustified, inasmuch as the reply submitted by petitioner which was duly received in the office of respondent No. 5 on 22.02.2024, has not been considered by respondent authoritie