Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Chetna Plaster Of Paris vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15598/2019
M/s. Chetna Plaster Of Paris, Through Proprietor Saubhag Singh
S/o Ran Singh Ji Age About 53 Years, Resident Of Near Narsingh
Sagar Talab, Sarvoday Basti, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary, Mines And Geology, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Mines And Geology Department Mines,
Udaipur.
4. The Additional Director Mines, Mines And Deology
Department, Udaipur.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology
Department, Bikaner Circle, Bikaner.
6. The Mining Engineer, Mines Department Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/12/2021
The matter comes up on an application (inward no.02/2021)
under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for bringing the legal
representatives of Late shri Saubhag Singh.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
The amended cause-title already filed is taken on record.
(Downloaded on 21/12/2021 at 09:07:05 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is finally heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question is covered by the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Mewar Marbles Limited.
Vs. State of Rajasthan, (D.B. Civil Special Appeal
No.398/2001) decided on 09.01.2002. The relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as under :
"5. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged
the action of respondents on three grounds i.e. (i) the
respondents fixed a joint inspection, however, they did
not provide opportunity to the appellant to remain
present at site; (ii) there is no basis for calculation of the
amount of penalty nor enquiry as envisaged under the
Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 was
held and the amount determined by way of penalty is
totally without any basis; (iii) it is a case of non-
application of mind so far as issuance of order dated
31.7.97 imposing penalty of Rs.77,88,150/- is concerned.
6. So far as first point raised by appellant is concerned, it
is clearly established from the record that no opportunity
was afforded to the appellant to be present at site at the
time of joint inspection on 3.7.97 as ordered by the
respondents themselves. The intimation about the date of
joint inspection was not given to the appellant in time.
The respondents have ailed to show that they had
informed the appellant about the date and time of
inspection in advance. The respondents have rather
proceeded on an erroneous basis while passing the order
dated 31.7.97. They have taken one Ish Pandey as
representative of appellant who, it appears, was present
at the site at the time of inspection. Form the order itself,
it is clear that Ish Pandey was not representative of
(Downloaded on 21/12/2021 at 09:07:05 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]
appellant, but was an allottee of plots no.24 and 32. this
also establishes non-application of mind on, the part of
respondents while passing the order dated 31.7.97. The
order dated 31.7.97 contains enough matieral to show
that respondents were taking contradictory stand which is
an evidence of non-application of mind on their part.
7. Coming to the second point raised by learned counsel
for the appellant that the order does not disclose any
basis for calculation of amount imposed by way of
penalty. We are of the view that submission made on
behalf of counsel for the appellant is correct. According to
the order, 7788.15 matric tone is the figure of alleged
illegally mined material. How from this figure, the figure
of Rs.77,88,150/- is arrived at, is not disclosed. The
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there
is a Schedule annexed to the Rules which gives the basis
for calculation. The learned counsel for the respondents
may be able to show from the Rules the basis of
calculation, however, it is settled law that show cause
notice should be intelligible enough to convey to the
party who is required to answer the show cause notice.
What is the case against it. The show cause notice should
be self-contained and should spell out the case against
the notice. In this case, the notice is vague as it does not
disclose any basis for arriving at any figure of
Rs.77,88,150/-.
8. A reference was invited by the learned counsel for
the appellant to the Rules of 48 & 53 and 54 of the
Rajasthan Minor &Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 in
order to urge that these 'rules envisage an enquiry on the
part of respondents for levying penalty but no enquiry
was held. Thereby the counsel suggests that it was
clearly a case of non-observance of relevant rules.
Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to show
that any enquiry was held as per rules for the purpose of
determining the amount of penalty. The appeal succeeds
(Downloaded on 21/12/2021 at 09:07:05 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-15598/2019]
on all the points raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned
demand contained in notices Annex.3 and 7is hereby
quashed. If the respondents want to proceed further in
the matter, they will be at liberty to take fresh action in
accordance with law. No order as to costs."
Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
refute the applicability of the aforequoted judgment.
Learned counsel for the respondent was also unable to show
in this case whether any enquiry was held as per rules for the
purpose of determining the amount of penalty.
In light of aforesaid submission, the present petition is
disposed of. Accordingly, the impugned demand order dated
09.08.2019 (Annex.9) is quashed and set aside and liberty is
granted to the respondents to initiate fresh inspection against the
present petitioner in his presence. In case any date and time is
given, it shall be binding upon the petitioner to appear and
cooperate with the proceedings.
Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
33-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
