Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vikas Balia, Amit Vyas
For the Respondents: Lalit Pareek, Aditya Gupta

Key Points: - The petition challenges cancellation/termination of mining lease dated 19.10.2022 under Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) of the 2017 Rules and seeks restoration of the lease (p_16). - The Court analyzes the mandatory 30-day notice requirement (second proviso) before termination and its proper stage (p_37, p_41, p_62, p_64, p_65, p_70, p_71). - It notes the sequence of breaches, penalties under Schedule IV, and that termination is a last resort after failure to remedy within notice/45 days (p_53, p_58, p_59, p_60). - The judgment emphasizes the need for a reasoned, non-speaking order and adequate consideration of the lessee’s reply (p_95, p_99–p_115). - It cites doctrine of proportionality and the requirement to consider lesser penalties before terminating (p_73–p_85, p_83). - It discusses harassment/hostile discrimination concerns where similar cases received restoration after Amnesty deposits but petitioner did not (p_116, p_117, p_123–p_125). - The court quashes the impugned orders and directs restoration of the mining lease, allowing continued operations subject to law and payment of remaining dues (p_125, p_126, p_127).

What is the appropriate stage for issuing the mandatory 30-days’ notice before termination of a mining lease under Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017?

What is the legality and rationality of terminating a mining lease where the lessee has deposited penalties under the Amnesty Scheme and a No Due Certificate has been issued?

What constitutes a valid, reasoned, and non-discriminatory decision when exercising the discretion to terminate a mining lease under Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) of the Rules of 2017?