Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Atlantic Ceramics vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14911/2018
M/s. Atlantic Ceramics, Through Proprietor Rafik Khan S/o Shri
Muzaffar Khan, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of 554, O.t.c.
Scheme, Amba Mata, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Mines And
Geology Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Mines And Geology Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Shastri
Circle, University Road, Udaipur.
4. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department
Beawar, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, Dy.GC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
17/02/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had an original lease of mineral Quartz and Feldspar, to which, he
applied for inclusion of granite mineral, which was included.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without
furnishing any reason, any notice or any opportunity of hearing
(Downloaded on 21/02/2022 at 08:38:26 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-14911/2018]
and without complying with the basic parameters of natural
justice, an adverse order has been passed on 14.09.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Ramesh Gurjar Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11521/2018) on 02.01.2019. The operative portion of the
judgment reads as under:
"7. Indisputably, the petitioner was granted the mining
lease under the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules,
1960, as at the relevant time, the minerals Quartz and
Feldspar were categorised as major mineral and thus, the
provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1986, had no
application. In any case, it is not in dispute that while
granting the mining lease the applications preferred by the
applicants earlier were required to be given preference
under the Rules of 1960 as well. But the fact remains that
the petitioner was granted the mining lease way back in
the year 2012 and he is operating the mines till this date.
It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant who
alleged to have made application earlier than the petitioner
has raised any grievance regarding non consideration of his
application, if any pending. Moreover, apparently on the
basis of audit objection, the State Government invoking the
provisions of Rule 75 of Rules of 2017, inasmuch as now
the mineral Quartz and Feldspar have been categorised as
minor mineral by the Government of India, straightaway
declared the mining lease granted in favour of the
petitioner as null and void without giving him an
opportunity of hearing.
8. It stands firmly well established that the rules of
natural justice are assurances of justice and fair play and
therefore, any action which has evil and civil consequences,
should be taken only after following the principle of natural
(Downloaded on 21/02/2022 at 08:38:26 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-14911/2018]
justice. To say the least the observance of principles of
natural justice is a rule and exclusion an exception and
therefore, unless exceptional circumstances justifying
exclusion thereof exist, departure therefrom is not
permissible under the law.
9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly
on the strength of the mining lease granted the petitioner
is operating the mine for last more than 5 years. Obviously,
the right vested in the petitioner to operate the mines for
the lease period i.e. 30 years and thus, his vested right to
operate the mine could not have been set at naught merely
on the basis of audit objections, without putting him to
notice against the proposed action, while drawing unilateral
conclusion that preferential claim of another applicant has
not been considered. The petitioner is well within his right
to contest the reasons against the proposed action on all
available grounds and thus, the order impugned passed by
the State Government in perfunctory manner without
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, being in
gross violation of principle of natural justice, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order
impugned dated 12.6.18 passed by the State Government
is quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to take
appropriate decision in respect of cancellation of mining
lease granted in favour of the petitioner after giving him an
opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. No order as
to costs."
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, but is unable to
refute that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing
whatsoever in conformity with the basic parameters of natural
justice was given.
(Downloaded on 21/02/2022 at 08:38:26 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-14911/2018]
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
while quashing the impugned order dated 14.09.2018, the
respondents are directed to give proper opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner so as to enable him to take up his issue
appropriately, and thereafter, pass the order strictly in accordance
with law; the same be done without getting prejudiced by this
order, on merits.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
148-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
