RIDHI SIDHI ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is listed in the 'orders' category, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is being heard and decided finally today itself.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notice dtd. 4/4/2014 (Annx.2), order dtd. 28/4/2014 (Annx.7), order dtd. 5/12/2016 (Annx.17) as well as the order dtd. 20/11/2018 (Annex.24).

(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner being a proprietorship firm was awarded a contract on 22/3/2013 for collection of excess royalty under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The period of contract was from 1/4/2013 to 31/3/2015. While the petitioner was working under the terms and conditions of the contract, a notice was received by the petitioner on 12/4/2014 wherein it was stated that one ACD case was registered against the petitioner and certain forged receipts have been found for the transportation of the minerals from the area under contract. In pursuance of the notice received, the petitioner appeared before the respondent- department and the respondent- Mining Engineer terminated the contract of the petitioner and forfeited the Earnest Money vide order dtd. 28/4/2014. Against the order dtd. 28/4/2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Director of Mines. On 15/5/2014, the Additional Director of Mines passed a reasoned and detailed interim order whereby the order dtd. 28/4/2014 was stayed. After the order dtd. 15/5/2014 was passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner completed the contract period and deposited the amount due to the respondents as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. In addition to the amount due under the agreement, the petitioner also deposited penalty amount of Rs.50,22,635.00 in furtherance of the interim order passed on 15/5/2014. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was ultimately rejected vide order dtd. 5/12/2016 well after the contract period was over. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal against the order dtd. 5/12/2016 before the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department and the same was also rejected vide order dtd. 20/11/2018.