Devi Shahai And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3505 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:17699]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7743/2018

1.       Devi Sahai, Son Of Shri Ramji Lal

2.       Rakesh Son Of Shri Devi Sahai Meena

3.       Ballo @ Balwant Son Of Shri Devi Sahai Meena, All

         Residents Of Mandawar, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department

         Of    Mines,     Government             Of    Rajasthan,      Government

         Secretariat, Jaipur-302005.
2.       Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And

         Minerals, Government Of Rajasthan, Dausa.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Mohan Navgadha Mr. Hari Prashad Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Zakir Hussain, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

14/08/2023

1. Matter comes up on an applications No.1/2019 &

77570/2018 under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for

vacation of stay order dated 24.04.2018.

2. The petitioners by way of filing the present writ petition have

challenged the order dated 15.11.2017, whereby the demand of

Rs.3,02,072/- has been made from the petitioners for illegal

mining. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated

01.01.2018, whereby the review application filed by the

[2023:RJ-JP:17699] (2 of 3) [CW-7743/2018]

petitioners in respect of order dated 15.11.2017, was also

dismissed.

3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the demand raised

against the petitioner under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Minor

Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules of 2017') and

against the order for raising demands under Rule 54 of the Rules

of 2017, petitioners have an alternative and efficacious statutory

remedy under Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017. Counsel further

submits that in view of the fact that the petitioners have

alternative statutory remedy against the order under Challenge in

the present writ petition, the present writ petition is not

maintainable.

4. In view of the preliminary objection made by counsel for the

respondents, counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer that

the petitioners may be permitted to file an appeal before the

Appellate Authority.

5. Having considered the submissions made by counsels

appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it just and

proper to dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the

petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal available to him under

Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017 to challenge the orders dated

15.11.2017 & 01.01.2018.

6. This Court also deems it fit to observe that the period during

which this writ petition remains pending with this Court shall be

excluded for the purpose of calculation of period of limitation for

filing the appeal.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

[2023:RJ-JP:17699] (3 of 3) [CW-7743/2018]

8. Since the main petition has been disposed of, the stay

application and all other pending application/s, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

ARTI SHARMA /87

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)