Advocates:
['DD THANVI', '', 'ARVIND SHRIMALI', 'AMIT VYAS', 'RK SONI', '', 'SUMAN PORWAL']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 11189 / 2012

Pooran Singh s/o Shri Jabbar Singh, aged about 49 years, r/o

village Angor, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government

of Rajasthan, Mines Department, Jaipur.

2. The Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Sirohi.

3. The Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Arvind Shrimali

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Suman Porwal, Dy. GC

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Order

03/03/2017

1.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

17.8.2012 passed by the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology

Department, Sirohi, whereby a demand of royalty quantified at Rs.

14,08,523/- has been created against the petitioner on account of

excavation of mineral in excess of the quantity specified in the

consent to operate issued by Rajasthan Pollution Control Board.

2.

Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the order

impugned creating huge demand has been passed by the

authority concerned without giving him an opportunity of hearing,

solely on the basis of an audit objection raised by the Accountant

General.

(2 of 3)

[CW-11189/2012]

3.

It is not disputed by the learned Deputy Government

Counsel before this court that the demand has been raised by the

respondent no.2 agreeing with the audit objection, without giving

an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ

petition involving identical question already stands disposed of by

a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.12.13 passed

in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8129/11, “S.K.Khetan Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.”, with the directions to the Assistant Mining

Engineer, Department of Mines, Dungarpur, to consider the

objections against the demand to be raised by the petitioner

therein, in accordance with law and the pending disposal of the

objections, the recovery of the impugned demand has been

stayed.

5.

This factual position is not disputed by the learned Deputy

Government Counsel appearing for the respondent- State.

6.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of

with the directions in the following terms:

(1)

The petitioner may raise the objections against the demand

created before the Mining Engineer, within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(2)

The objections to be raised by the petitioner shall be

considered and appropriate order shall be passed by the

authority concerned after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

(3 of 3)

[CW-11189/2012]

petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of two

months;

(3)

The petitioner, if aggrieved, by the order to be passed by

the authority concerned, shall be at liberty to avail the

appropriate remedy, available to him under the law;

(4)

Until the disposal of the objections to be raised by the

petitioner against the impugned demand, the recovery thereof

shall remain stayed.

7.

No order as to costs.

(SANGEET LODHA)J.

rp47