Advocates:
['B M BOHRA', '', 'D L R VYAS', 'KULDEEP VAISHNAV', 'ABHISHEK BOHRA', 'J S NARUKA', 'SANDEEP SHAH']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3914/2020

Jhoomo Devi W/o Kurdaram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village

Bujyanau Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Directorate,

Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3.

The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,

Jodhpur.

4.

The Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. DLR Vyas.

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Mr. Sandeep

Shah, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

27/07/2020

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure-9) passed by the

Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, inter-alia, requiring the petitioner to

deposit a sum of Rs.1,06,35,534/- being the amount recoverable

for the alleged illegal mining activity undertaken by the petitioner.

The petitioner was given mining lease vide lease Annexure-1.

A notice dated 09.02.2017 was issued to the petitioner alleging

that ravannas were misused, wherein it was claimed that there

(2 of 4)

[CW-3914/2020]

was production of 15450 MT mineral, whereas mining pit was

measuring 5mtr. x 5mtr. x 2 mtr.

The petitioner responded to the said notice, inter-alia,

disputing the contents and claiming that the inspection was

carried in her absence. Whereafter, the order dated 27.03.2018

(Annexure-4) was issued, inter-alia, indicating that the mining pit

was 100mtr. x 42mtr. x 2.5mtr., which would result in production

of 14700 MT and ravannas were issued for 15450 MT, same were

misused to the extent of 750 MT and a penalty of Rs.2,10,000/-

was imposed. Which was deposited by the petitioner vide

Annexure-5.

Whereafter, on 19.11.2019, a notice was issued to the

petitioner, inter-alia, indicating the facts as already given herein-

before and then referring to an audit objection, the petitioner was

called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.1,06,35,534/-. The petitioner

responded to the same by filing a detailed reply vide Annexure-8.

By the order dated 20.02.2020 (Annex.9), the Mining

Engineer by simply repeating the facts, required the petitioner to

deposit a sum of Rs.1,06,35,534/-.

Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

department has been taking vacillating stand, inasmuch as, earlier

the mining pit was indicated of a particular measurement, which

was revised later on, based on which, demand was raised, which

was satisfied by the petitioner. Now, based on the audit objection,

a fresh demand has been raised, which is not justified.

Submissions have been made that the petitioner has filed a

detailed response to the notice, however, nothing has been

considered and a mechanical order dated 20.02.2020 (Annex.9)

(3 of 4)

[CW-3914/2020]

has been passed and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed

and set-aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made

submissions that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the

jurisdiction of this Court on account of availability of alternative

remedy of appeal and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed on this count alone.

Further submissions have been made that various disputed

question of fact have been alleged in the petition and therefore

also, the writ jurisdiction may not be invoked, as such, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A bare look at the order dated 20.02.2020 (Annex.9)

indicates that despite the petitioner fling a detailed reply

(Annex.8) requesting for re-inspection etc., raising various

grounds and relying o