SHIKHA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these writ petitions, challenge has been made to the order dated 16. 07. 2008, 06. 01. 2009, 29. 04. 2009. Since the facts and the controversy in both the writ petitions are common, thus matters were taken together. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the lease deed dated 25. 03. 1995, the petitioners were granted lease for a period of 20 years. The petitioners were doing thier mining work sincerely, which is otherwise reflected from the fact that returns for assessment of royalty were submitted by the petitioners and finalized by the department from time to time. The petitioners were making complaints to the respondents that illegal mining in the area is going on and those complaints were made from the year 1996 itself. No action was taken by the respondents despite of complete details furnished by the petitioners and that too when the petitioners were regularly sending complaints to the petitioners informing about the illegal mining in the area. At one point of time, three load of trucks were caught, which was sufficient to show that illegal mining in the area was going on, however as and when respondents were asked to make statement in that regard, it was given out that no illegal mining is going on, thus from the very beginning, the respondents were satisfied that no illegal mining in the area is going on. It is submitted that at one point of time, mining operation of the petitioners' mines were stopped due to safety reasons, however, on the application moved by the petitioners, the competent authority made an inspection. The order dated 17. 08. 2006 was passed under Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral concession Rules, the mining operation was declared to be safe with all the precautions taken by the petitioners. The mining activity of the petitioners was not yet allowed, thus the petitioners had to file a suit, which is pending consideration before the civil Court. Initially, an injunction was granted by the trial Court directing parties to maintain status quo but the injunction application was thereafter, dismissed.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the rejection of the injunction application, petitioners preferred appeal and therein, the injunction order has been passed directing parties to maintain status quo. The aforesaid litigation is in regard to the mining activities of the petitioners under the lease deed granted to him. So far as the present matter is concern, that is slightly on a different issue inasmuch as vide order 16. 07. 2008, a demand was raised by the respondent department holding petitioners to be guilty for illegal mining. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners in a revision petition, which was then allowed vide the order dated 06. 01. 2009 and thereby demand order dated 06. 07. 2008 was set aside holding that petitioners were not provided opportunity of hearing before passing the order. A direction was further given that respondents may constitute a committee to make a survey and petitioners were given liberty and direction to remain present at the time of survey and to make their submissions. Pursuant to the direction passed by the revisional authority, a survey committee was constituted, which was including officers, who had earlier passed the order, thus petitioners made an application before the revisional authority for issuance of the direction for proper constitution of survey committee. The request was that independent person should be made as a member of the survey committee. The request so made by the petitioners was not accepted and the effect of the aforesaid is that the survey committee earlier constituted was to make survey. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was nothing but an effort of the respondents to pass orders against the petitioners at the instance of the villagers, who were acting at the instance of one Heerapuri Baba, who had instigated the villagers not to allow the petitioners to carry out the mining and the respondents, at their instance, passed the impugned order. It is stated that when the petitioners were making complaints regarding illegal minings from the year 1996, the respondents kept silence rather as and when they filed reply pursuant to the allegation before different forums, it was stated that no illegal mining is going on and now with a view to harass the petitioners, illegal demand is raised vide the impugned order though same has been quashed at present in a revision. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners is that not only a direction may be given to constitute independent survey team but to further direct the respondents to take an independent and proper decision as to who is guilty for illegal mining and with the direction, the writ petition may be accepted while quashing the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners supports his arguments by referring judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Saroj Sharma Vs. State of rajasthan reported in 1993 (2) WLC (Raj.) 745. Learned counsel appearing for the department opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) IT is stated that the demand so raised against the petitioners regarding illegal mining has already been set aside in revision petition, thus grievance of the petitioners regarding passing of the order, raising demand, no more exists, hence the challenge to the said order is not even maintainable. It is stated that revisional authority had not only accepted the revision petition preferred by the petitioners but has further given a direction to make a fresh survey of the area after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, thus the main grievance of the petitioners has been redressed because while making survey afresh, the petitioners would be having liberty to show that the petitioners are not involved in regard to the illegal mining, but others are involved so that proper conclusions can be drawn by the survey team. So far as the challenge to the constitution of the committee is concern, since competent officers were made party to the survey team, hence prayer of the petitioners to change the survey team was rightly being declined by the revisional authority. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, there is no force in the writ petition rather petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief from this Court. It is stated that while making new survey by the committee, the earlier order passed would not be influence them more so when now the petitioners would be present during course of survey and if any order is passed, it would be only after hearing the petitioners, thus in view of the above, no relief is required to be granted to the petitioners.