SAROJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated October 8, 1990, by Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Department of Mines, Jaipur. This order was passed under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').

(2.) In brief, facts are that the petitioner was having a mining lease for mineral 'Marble' situated near village Sankotra. The lease was for 10 years with effect from 2.2.1987. However, the petitioner moved an application on 19.2.1990 for transfer of the lease in favour of one Shri Prem Nath Bansal. The permission to transfer was accorded vide order dated 7.3.1990 by the competent authority. It is alleged that Superintending Mining Engineer had inspected the mining area on 10.7.1990 and on the basis of the inspection report a notice dated 23.7.1990 was issued to the petitioner by Mining Engineer (Vigilance) wherein she was asked to give her explanation and to show cause as to why twelve times penalty of Rs. 3,12,962/- be not recovered from her for illegal despatch of marble blocks of 326 Tonnes. According to the petitioner, no final order was passed by respondent No. 2, but still a notice was issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) on 11.2.91 whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 3,12,962/- by February 25, 1991, failing which the recovery proceedings by way of sale of the properties was to be taken. The petitioner has stated that she gave the reply to the notice denying that any excavation of mineral was made by her. The petitioner again received a letter from Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery), Jaipur, dated 29.4.1991 wherein it was stated that the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, as such she should deposit the aforesaid amount. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the Additional Director Mines & Geology, Udaipur, against the aforesaid letter/order. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.8.1991 (Annex. 6) on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable against the notice of recovery. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a notice through her counsel to the Mining Engineer (Vigilance) Jaipur demanding a certified copy of the order, by which the demand was raised so that she may file a revision. It was also stated by her that she did not receive a copy of any final order in relation to the imposition of penalty. The petitioner received a reply from respondent No. 2 in which it was stated that the final order dated 8.10.1990 was sent to her through registered letter dated 10.4.1991. When a copy of that order was demand, she was supplied a copy of the so called final order which has been placed on record as Annexure 10.

(3.) In the return, the facts are not much in dispute. As per the respondents also the final order dated 8.10.1990 is Annexure 10. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner had transferred the mining lease in favour of Shri Prem Nath Bansal and that transfer deed was executed on 12.4.1990. According to them, the petitioner had carried out excavation illegally and a notice was given by the Mining Engineer (Vigilance) to her on 23.7.1990 and the petitioner had denied the fact of illegal excavation but it was incorrect as per the inspection report. Thus, according to the respondents, the penalty was rightly imposed by respondent No. 2.