SAROJ YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 10.09.2012, passed on the application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order dated 11.02.2011 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13325/2010, is under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) THE appellant is the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13325/2010. By the order impugned, the writ -petition has been disposed of by relegating the writ -petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The stay application filed by her stood rejected thereby as well.

(3.) A brief account of the relevant facts, to the extent indispensable for the present adjudication, is called for. The appellant/writ -petitioner had been granted mining lease for mineral masonry stone for an area measuring 1000 sq. meters near village Badi Doongari, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur by order dated 13.09.1993 for a period of 20 years from the date of registration of the lease deed. The mining lease came into force with effect from 16.02.1994, the date of registration of the lease deed and was to continue for a period of 20 years, as aforestated. According to the appellant/writ -petitioner, she had been strictly adhering to the terms and conditions of the lease and was abiding by all the requirements prescribed thereby. She has asserted that she had been submitting the returns, as required, and the amount of royalty in terms thereof. Contending that from the very beginning she has been facing problem of illegal excavation by unauthorized persons in the sites abutting her mining area, the appellant/writ -petitioner has stated that complaining about the same, she had submitted several representations before the concerned Mining Engineer. That eventually on 11.08.2006 her mining operations had to be closed down and that thereafter the same has not been restored, has been stated by her. The appellant/writ -petitioner has also referred to the motivated complaints made by the villagers with the concerned authorities of the Mining Department for cancellation of her mining lease. According to her, being apprehensive of adverse action against her, she instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, praying for a decree of permanent injunction. She has stated that on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the learned trial Court, on 26.08.2006, passed an order maintaining status quo. She, however, has alleged that in spite of such judicial intervention, unauthorized and unfounded complaints against her continued to be filed. She has referred as well to a public interest litigation, initiated before this Court i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8422/2006 by the villagers, in which the State - respondents, in their reply, categorically pleaded against any breach committed by her of the terms and conditions of the lease or illegal excavation. This proceeding was eventually disposed on 18.09.2007. This, notwithstanding, in the face of the unabated complaints being filed against the appellant with ulterior motive, an ex parte inspection of the site was carried out on 22.12.2007, whereupon the jurisdictional Mining Engineer issued a notice on 02.01.2008 asking her to be present for demarcation on 18.01.2008. According to the appellant/writ -petitioner, in spite of her representations seeking time, the same were cast aside and an inspection was conducted on 25.02.2008 in her absence, whereafter a notice was issued 26.03.2008 to her alleging that she had been carrying on illegal excavation of masonry stone outside the sanctioned area of mining lease. Being aggrieved by this step and also anticipating that the concerned authorities were bent upon for harassing and intimidating her, she made a request to the concerned Mining Engineer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the allegations of illegal excavation. This was also followed by a detailed representation on 14.07.2008, in which she, inter alia, mentioned that the report based on the inspection on 25.02.2008 alleging illegal excavation, was factually incorrect and that she was prepared to cross examine the witnesses supporting such imputations. The jurisdictional Mining Engineer, however, without considering the representation, passed an order on 16.07.2008, inter alia, to the effect that due to illegal excavation an amount of Rs.94,080/ - was recoverable from the appellant by way of cost of minerals involved. This proposal was also approved by the concerned Superintending Mining Engineer on 15.07.2008. The appellant/writ -petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Deputy Secretary, Mines, who remanded the matter to the Additional Director, Mines, Jaipur for constituting a committee to re -conduct the survey in her presence. Eventually, pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2009 of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7000/2009, a Committee was constituted, which conducted the survey of the area from 03.12.2009 to