2026 Supreme(Raj) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Takhat Singh S/o Shri Nirbhay Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5368 of 2025
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Administrative authorities must strictly observe mandatory procedural protections, such as providing specific prior notice before termination. Termination must be a measure of last resort, justified by reasoned orders, and applied consistently to avoid discrimination while adhering to the doctrine of proportionality.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Mineral Concession Rules - Termination of lease - Procedural requirements - Mandatory thirty days’ notice requirement under the Rules for termination - Requirement serves as a safeguard to afford a final opportunity to remedy breaches - Non-compliance with such statutory mandate vitiates the termination order. (Para 6.8)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of reasoned and speaking orders - Administrative orders must reflect application of mind and address specific contentions raised in replies - Cryptic or rubber-stamp orders without reasons violate principles of natural justice and fairness. (Para 8.2)

(C) Proportionality - Doctrine of - When a statute provides for alternative courses of action, such as imposition of penalty or termination of lease, the authority must exercise discretion and consider less drastic measures - Termination of a lease is an extreme measure to be invoked only as a last resort. (Para 7.4)

(D) Equality - Hostile discrimination - Consistent application of administrative policy - Denial of relief to a party while granting the same to similarly situated persons results in arbitrary and discriminatory administrative action. (Para 9.3)

Facts of the case:
A mining lease holder challenged the cancellation of their lease, which had been ordered due to alleged breaches of lease conditions, including failure to install boundary markers and unauthorized extraction. Despite the lease holder clearing the dues through a government-offered settlement scheme and obtaining a certificate of clearance, authorities refused to restore the mining rights. The petitioner contended that the termination process lacked the mandatory prior notice and that other similarly situated lease holders had received favorable treatment, amounting to discriminatory conduct.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the termination was procedurally flawed due to the absence of a specific thirty-day notice preceding the final decision, as required by the statutory framework. The court further found that the foundational orders imposing heavy penalties were non-speaking and failed to address the petitioner's detailed explanations. Additionally, the failure to consider alternative financial penalties, as permitted by the rules, rendered the termination disproportionate. The court also observed that refusal to restore the lease after complete payment, while similar benefits were extended to others, constituted unequal and discriminatory treatment.

Issues: 1. Whether the termination of a lease without a specific prior thirty-day notice is legally sustainable. 2. Whether the failure to evaluate alternative penalties violates the principle of proportionality. 3. Whether non-speaking orders imposing financial penalties for alleged breaches are valid. 4. Whether denial of restoration after settlement amounts to hostile discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority is legally bound by the sequence of procedural safeguards defined in the applicable minor mineral rules. Termination of a lease cannot be executed mechanically and must be a measure of last resort. The failure to provide a specific notice prior to termination, combined with the lack of recorded reasons for rejecting a lessee’s reply and the selective denial of benefits afforded to others, invalidates the administrative action.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed and set aside; respondents directed to restore the lease.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding mining lease cancellation and subsequent statutory appeals. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argument on procedural violations and proportionality of lease termination. (Para 3 , 4)
3. mandatory 30-day notice required before lease termination as a procedural safeguard. (Para 5 , 6)
4. requirement of proportionality and reasoned orders in quasi-judicial lease cancellation decisions. (Para 7 , 8)
5. prohibition against hostile discrimination regarding amnesty scheme lease restoration benefits. (Para 9)
6. final synthesis of legal infirmities leading to order of lease restoration. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.10.2022, cancelling mining lease of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2017”). Petitioner prayed for restoration of mining lease dated 07.02.2020.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for minerals quartz and feldspar in respect of land falling within his khatedari holdings, comprising Khasra Nos. 873/155 and 868/155, situated at Village Takariyon Ka Gura, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand. Upon completion of procedure prescribed under Rules of 2017, respondent authorities granted and executed a mining lease in favour of the petitioner on 07.02.2020 for a period of 50 years.

2.1 During subsistence of the mining lease, Respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 12.01.2022 alleging two breaches on the part of the petitioner, namely, non-installation of pakka boundary pillars over the lease area and undertaking unauthorized mining. Petitioner duly submitted a reply thereto, inter alia stating that pakka pillars had already been installed on the boundaries of lease area and that mining operations were carried out within leased area and minerals were dispatched through valid ravanna slips so also requisite royalty had been duly paid, therefore, allegation of unauthorized mining could not be sustained.

2.2 However, Respondent No. 3, vide subsequent notice dated 18.04.2022, holding petitioner’s explanation as unsatisfactory, determined penalty amounting to Rs. 1,53,11,900/- to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount, with a further stipulation that in case of default, recovery proceedings would be initiated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

2.3 Aggrieved by the said notice/order, petitioner preferred an appeal, however, First Appellate Authority dismissed the same observing that impugned communication dated 18.04.2022 was merely in the nature of a notice and, thus, no appeal against the same was maintainable.

2.4. Challenging the same, petitioner preferred revision petition before Respondent No. 1. During the pendency of said revision petition, petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16130/2022, which was subsequently withdrawn. Revision petition came to be allowed vide order dated 12.04.2023 and while setting aside order dated 27.07.2022 passed by Appellate Authority, matter was remanded to Respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal against the notice/order dated 18.04.2022 afresh on merits and to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

2.5 During the period when petitioner was pursuing statutory remedies against the original notice dated 18.04.2022, Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 19.10.2022, cancelled petitioner’s mining lease in exercise of powers under Rule 28(2) (xvii)(a) of Rules of 2017, alleging non-compliance of notices dated 12.01.2022 and 18.04.2022.

2.6 It is further contended that subsequent to the cancellation of mining lease, State Government introduced an Amnesty Scheme and petitioner, while availing the benefit of said scheme, deposited entire revised penalty amount, pursuant to which Respondent No. 3 issued a “No Due Certificate”

Click Here to Read the rest of this document