Administrative actions based on drone surveys are violative of the principles of natural justice if conducted without prior notice to the affected party and without providing a copy of the survey report to enable a meaningful opportunity to contest the findings.

Order

1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the demand order & show-cause notice dated 01/04/2026 (Annex. 8) & 13.02.2026 (Annex. 6) along with the consequential demand, issued by the respondent authorities, as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action, including cancellation or suspension of the petitioner’s mining lease (M.L. No. 14/2020), pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned show-cause notice and demand;

(c) And direct to respondent department to supply the copy of drone report and also prepared a drone report after examining the material available on record in presence of the petitioner.

(d) In the alternative, direct the respondents to conduct a fresh inspection/survey of the mining lease area strictly in accordance with law by adopting physical measurement through inch-tape, GPS/DGS etc. considering existing reference points, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;

(d) Grant any other relief(s), direction(s) or order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.”

2. While elucidating facts of present case, learned counsel for petitioner stated that mining lease bearing M.L. No. 14/2020 (Annexure-1) was granted to petitioner firm on 02.02.2022 for a period of 50 years for mineral Quartz near village Kariyana, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur. It is contended that petitioner is having all the required permissions / clearance / consents and has undertaken the mining activity strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

2.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No.5, without prior intimation to petitioner and in his absence, conducted a drone survey on 31.12.2025 through a private firm. It is further contended that, without verifying the authenticity of the drone survey and without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the impugned show cause notice dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure-6) came to be issued alleging illegal mining and misuse of ravannas by the petitioner. By said notice, petitioner was directed to submit a reply along with relevant documents, failing which a demand of Rs.1,11,86,862/- was proposed to be raised against petitioner.

2.2 It was contended that, pursuant to said notice, petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure-7), however, despite the same, respondent No.3 proceeded to issue the demand notice dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure-8), raising a demand of Rs.1,11,86,862/- against the petitioner.

2.3 Learned counsel for petitioner stated that even the copy of drone survey report has not been supplied to the petitioner, which is the sole basis of consequent demand notice issued against the petitioner. It is also contended that the reply though submitted but has not been considered while issuing final demand notice.

3. Per contra, learned AAG Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, appearing for the respondent-Department, submitted that drone survey is one of the most scientific and reliable methods of conducting a survey. It was, therefore, contended that consequential demand notice has been validly issued on the basis of scientific findings derived from such survey.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material available on record.

5. In considered opinion of this Court, the action of r