RAMJI DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged three orders, namely order dated 15.04.1989 (Ann.1), order dated 03.06.1995 (Ann.6) and order dated 16.04.1996 (Ann.8). The first order was passed by the Mining Engineer, Ramganj Mandi, District Kola whereby the Mining Engineer had imposed an excess royalty of Rs,5,76,494/- upon the petitioner. The second order was passed by the Additional Director (Mines) whereby the Additional Director upheld the order dated 15.04.1989. Lastly, the third order was passed by the Dy. Secretary, Mines Department whereby he has confirmed the order of the Additional Director dated 15.04.1989.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has a mining lease for mineral lime stone (building stones) in an area measuring 4500 X 2000 Sq. Feet in village Pipa Kheri, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi, District Kota. The said licence was initially given on 11.04.1961. It was continuously renewed till 2001. According to him, he has been carrying out the mining operation as per the mining laws. According to him, he has continuously paid the royalty to the Government. However, on 06.03.1987, when his mines were inspected, certain irregularities were discovered. A copy of the Inspection Report was given to him on 20.03.1987. Immediately on 29.03.1987, he replied to the inspection report. A notice was issued on 24.06.1987 clearly pointing out the irregularities which were discovered by the Mining Engineer. According to the notice, it was felt that the returns filed by the petitioner were improper and therefore, he was asked to appear before the Mining Engineer on 09.07.1987 and to produce the relevant documents and to explain the irregularities. Although, the petitioner did not appear before the Mining Engineer, but he did submit a detailed reply to the said notice. After going through the reply, vide order dated 15.04.1989, the Mining Engineer imposed excess royalty as mentioned above. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.1989, he filed an appeal before the Additional Director, However, vide order dated 03.06.1995, the Additional Director, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Dy. Secretary. However, vide order dated 16.04.1996, the Dy. Secretary while confirming the order dated 03.06.1995, also dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.

(3.) Vide order dated 13.09.2006. this Court had dismissed this petition on the ground that the petitioner had hidden a vital fact from the Court when the matter was argued for admission on 22.10.1996. The petitioner thereafter filed a Special Appeal before a learned Division Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 05.03.2008, the learned Division Bench remanded the case to the learned single Bench and directed that the point taken by the petitioner before the learned single Judge that the appeal has been decided by a person who had initiated an inquiry against him. the said point could not be raised before the learned single Judge. In fact, the petitioner was directed to restrict his arguments to other points. Hence, this petition has travelled back to this Bench.