Advocates:
['RAJENDRA KATARIYA', '', 'ARVIND SHRIMALI', 'AMIT VYAS', 'SUMAN PORWAL']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 10566 / 2015

Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Giriraj Prasad, Aged about 45

years, resident of B-16, Shyam Colony, Udaipur Road,

Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Rajasthan through the Joint Secretary, Mines

Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Director, Mines & Geology Department, Directorate of

Mines & Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur (Raj.).

3.

The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology

Department, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur Circle, Udaipur.

4.

The Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department,

Government of Rajasthan, Pratapgarh.

5.

The Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology

Department, Government of Rajasthan, Banswara.

----Respondents

__________________________________________

For Petitioners :

Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. With

Mr. D.D. Thanvi

For Respondents :

Mr. P.R. Singh, Addl. Adv. General with

Mrs. Suman Porwal

__________________________________________

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Judgment / Order

08/12/2016

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of

the order dated 13.5.2013 (Annex.16) as well as the order

dated 26.8.2015 (Annex.19) dismissing the revision against the

(2 of 3 )

[CW-10566/2015]

order dated 13.5.2013 vide which the lease of the petitioner

was cancelled.

A mining lease for mineral marble near village Tripura

Sundri, District Banswara was granted to the petitioner in the

year 1996 for a period of 20 years. During the operation of the

mining lease, the audit party of the Accountant General while

auditing the records of the office of respondent No.5 for the

year 2009-10 raised the objections that a sum of

Rs.18,25,99,209/- as cost of mineral is liable to be recovered

from the petitioner. Solely on the basis of the said audit

objection, the respondent No.5 proceeded against the petitioner

and issued a demand notice on 15.10.2012 without granting

any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged the said

demand notice in SBCWP No.11607/2012. However, the said

audit objections were dropped by the Accountant General,

Jaipur as informed by the Mining Engineer, Banswara vide letter

dated 23.02.2016 which was placed on record as Annexure-A/1

in the said writ petition as communicated to the petitioner in

pursuance to the information sought under the Right to

Information Act. This fact was not disputed by the State and

accordingly, the SBCWP No.11607/2012 was allowed and the

demand notice dated 15.10.2012 issued on the basis of the

said objection was set aside by this Court vide order dated

2.12.2016. During the intervening period, the respondent

authorities swung into action and cancelled the mining leased

granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.5.2013 impugned

(3 of 3 )

[CW-10566/2015]

herein on the basis of the same audit objection and the

possession of the mining lease too was taken over.

It is not disputed before this Court that the said mining

lease was cancelled in pursuance to the same audit objections

on the basis of which, the demand notice dated 15.10.2012 was

issued and has since been set aside. It is also not disputed that

the mining lease was cancelled on the basis of the same audit

objections which have been dropped by the Accountant

General, Jaipur. Thus, the very basis of the cancellation of the

lease deed does not survive.

In view of the admitted position, the present writ petition

is allowed and the order dated 13.5.2013 as well as the order

dated 26.8.2015 are set aside with a direction to the

respondents to restore the possession of the lease to the

petitioner.

At this stage, learned Addl. Advocate General for the

State has pointed out that there are and may be amount

payable by the petitioner which the department has yet to

ascertain. If it is so, the respondent Department is