ABHA JAIN, Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:

(2.) By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dtd. 26/3/2025 and 20/8/2024; demand order dtd. 22/3/2024; and show cause notices dtd. 18/1/2024 & 27/1/2024.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a mining lease for the mineral Silica Sand admeasuring 05 hectare area situated near village Chhapra, Tehsil Pahari, District Bharatpur was sanction in favour of the petitioner on 30/12/2005 and a subsequent mining lease was executed on 3/2/2006 for a period of 20 years. Counsel submits that the mining activities/operations were closed in the year 2016 on account of non-receipt of Environment Clearance and thereafter, some inspection was done by the Mining Department in the year 2018, where certain old pits were found and no mining operations were found to be carrying on. Counsel submits that thereafter, again an inspection was done in the year 2022, where no mining activities or pits were found. Counsel submits that all of a sudden in absence of the petitioner, inspection was done and an ex-parte report was prepared on 16/1/2024, wherein, it was alleged that illegal mining activities were conducted by the petitioner in her own mining area as well as on the two nearby situated sites. Counsel submits that on the basis of the ex- parte inspection report, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 18/1/2024, against which she submitted a detailed reply. Counsel submits that considering the averments made in the reply, the impugned demand order dtd. 22/3/2024 has been passed by the respondents, wherein the reply/objections submitted by the petitioner were not at all considered and the same were rejected in one single line that the petitioner has failed to prove any evidence that he has not conducted any illegal mining. Counsel submits that without supplying the inspection report, the above proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that by passing the order impugned, a penalty for conversion factor has also been imposed, which could not have been imposed in the light of the circular/order dtd. 15/11/2017 issued by the Department of Mining, which clearly specifies that after enactment of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2017 (for short 'the Rules of 2017'), notified on 1/3/2017, the provision for conversion factor in royalty Schedule has been removed. Counsel submits that the provision for conversion factor was applicable prior to enactment of the Rules of 2017, hence, under these circumstances, there is total non- application of mind on the part of the respondents in passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that all these facts were brought into notice of the Appellate Authority by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition, but the same were not considered and the revision petition was rejected and subsequent impugned orders have been passed illegally. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.