SHYAM SIROYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs :-

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dtd. 7/10/2023 passed in SBCWP No.9763/2014 : Smt. Chandra Kala Bilochi Vs. The Union of India and Ors. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, the respondents while passing the impugned order, failed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing which is mandatory as per Rule 18 (21) (a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as well as Rule 27 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. He further submits that as the respondents passed an order dtd. 26/8/2014 (Annexure-6) while mentioning in it that the petitioner was served upon a notice on 5/5/2014 and was directed to submit reply within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the said notice. He submits that however such notice was never served upon the petitioner. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that respondents served notice dtd. 29/6/2010 (Annexure-10) upon the petitioner, which was duly received and a detailed reply was also submitted to it.