Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shivam Mines And Minerals vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-13373/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13373/2020
Shivam Mines And Minerals, Indawad, Tehsil Merta District
Nagaur Through Partner Bala Ram Khadav S/o Shri Jeevan Ram,
Aged 45 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Indawad, Tehsil
Merta City District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur.
3. Mining Engineer (Recovery), Mines And Geology
Department, Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Jasol } Both through VC
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
06/01/2022
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged
action of the respondent No.3, who has stopped issuing E-
Ravannas to the petitioner and stopped petitioner's mineral
excavation from the area covered by a mining lease granted to it.
2. Concisely stated, facts are that the State of Rajasthan issued
a notification dated 05.10.2018 and restricted/stopped
transportation of mineral 'Feldspar' out of the State.
3. Various persons including mine holders challenged the said
notification and in a case led by M/s Surana Minerals Private Ltd.
Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCW No.4101/2019), a Division Bench of
this Court vide its judgment dated 16.04.2020 quashed the
notifications dated 05.10.2018 and 10.03.2019 issued by the
State Government.
(2 of 3) [CW-13373/2020]
4. Respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner and raised
a demand for transportation of mineral in breach of the
notifications.
5. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being SB Civil Writ
Petition No.18111/2019, challenging the demand and the same
came to be allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its
judgment dated 06.07.2020; show cause notice dated 22.07.2019
and the subsequent letter dated 07.11.2019 passed by respondent
No.3 were set aside.
6. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that regardless of the above referred notice issued by respondent
No.3 and letter having been set aside, the respondents are not
issuing E-Ravanna to the petitioner-Firm, as a result whereof,
petitioner's business has come to screeching halt.
7. Mr. D.S. Jasol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
- State submitted that true it is, that petitioner's writ petition has
been allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2020 and the
notice and letter issued by respondent no.3 have been set aside,
but, according to the State, the petitioner was required to pay the
amount qua transportation made out of State upto the date of the
judgment passed by this Court (06.07.2020).
8. He submitted that respondent - State is justified in not
issuing E-Ravanna to the petitioner in wake of the pending
demand against it.
9. Heard.
10. It is not in dispute that the basic notifications dated
05.10.2018 and 10.03.2019 issued by the Department of Mines,
Government of Rajasthan have been declared unconstitutional and
quashed.
(3 of 3) [CW-13373/2020]
11. In the opinion of this Court, since the very notifications have
been quashed, the basis of demand raised by the respondent -
Mining Engineer stands nullified or annulled.
12. The fact that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the
notifications cannot give a handle to the respondents to enforce
the demand against the petitioner, particularly when its writ
petition has been allowed and the order dated 06.07.2020 has
attained finality.
13. The judgment passed by the Division Bench is in the nature
of a judgment in rem and not in personam. The same is applicable
to all concerned and binding on all the authorities of the State.
14. The action of the respondent - State in not issuing
E-Ravanna to the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, is
clearly arbitrary and contrary to the petitioner's fundamental right
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which
guarantees the citizens the right to carry on trade within the
vicinity of the State.
15. Impugned action of the respondents in not issuing
E-Ravanna to the petitioner and not permitting it to excavate and
carrying on its business is, therefore, declared illegal.
16. Respondents are directed to issue E-Ravanna to the
petitioner forthwith and permit it to excavate the mineral, in
accordance with law.
17. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
18. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
109-Amar/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
