BALAJI MARBLES MINES Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2010 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner Firm against the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur while observing that the Superintending Mining Engineer, Udaipur has rightly declared the order dated 19.7.2006 as null and void because Mining Engineer has passed the order dated 19.7.2006 without obtaining prior approval from Directorate.

(2.) In the writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner, it was contended that by order dated 19.7.2006, the Mining Engineer sanctioned the area of 4 hectares in favor of the petitioner firm by allowing extension of 15038.66 sq. yards to be included in the existing quarry No. 241. The appellant firm deposited entire amount for the purpose of allotment of said mining and final demarcation was also conducted by the Department on 24.8.2006. The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board also issued N.O.C. in favor of the appellant firm on 11.09.2006 but Directorate, Mines & Geology, issued a communication to the Mining Engineer on 14.6.2007 to declare the sanction order dated 19.7.2006 as null and void under Rule 72 of the Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 and further requested for sending compliance report.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the Mining Engineer whereby sanction was accorded in favor of the appellant firm was in consonance with law and the appellant firm completed all the requirements for the said purpose but without providing opportunity of hearing straight away while exercising power under Rule 72 of the Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1986, the Superintending Mining Engineer sent a communication to the Mining Engineer, Udaipur on 14.6.2007 to declare the sanction order dated 19.7.2006 as null and void. The said communication is totally against the principles of natural justice because the competent authority after following the procedure laid down under the Rules accorded sanction and if no approval was taken prior to issuing the sanction order then for that reason it cannot be said that the order dated 19.7.2006 was null and void. It is also argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that though a ground was taken by the appellant firm in the writ petition that the order dated 14.6.2007 is not only cryptic but nonspeaking order, that too, was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant firm to make his submissions. Therefore, on this ground alone, his writ petition was to be allowed. But learned Single Judge without considering this aspect of the matter has straight away dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant firm on the ground that as per reply of the respondents, no approval was taken from the Directorate prior to issuing sanction order dated 19.7.2006, therefore, the judgment dated 08.01.2010 passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition.