Smt. Omlata Singhal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1221 Raj

[2023/RJJD/003537]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1414/2022

Om Prakash Agrawal S/o Shri Ramdayal Agarwal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o.52, Agarwal Sadan, New Bank Colony, Ajmer Road, Adarsh Nagar, Beawer, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Deputy Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

4. The Additional Director Mines, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.

5. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.

6. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1410/2022 Smt. Omlata Singhal W/o Shri Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o.52, Agrawal Sadan, New Bank Colony, Beawer Road, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Deputy Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

4. The Additional Director Mines, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.

[2023/RJJD/003537] (2 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

5. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.

6. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :        Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)            :        Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, Deputy Govt.
                                      Counsel.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                         Order

02/02/2023


S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1410/2022 :

      Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 24/02/2015 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer,

Jodhpur, whereby the mining lease granted in favour of the

petitioner was cancelled and the order dated 18/11/2021 passed

by the Deputy Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government

of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, whereby the appeal of the

petitioner was rejected.

Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that

vide order dated 06/05/1989, the petitioner was granted a Mining

Lease (ML No.08/1999) for mineral Limestone near Village Barna

Harsh, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. While the petitioner was

operating the mine, he was served with a notice dated

04/02/2014 for deposition of the dead rent due. Since the

petitioner did not deposit the dead rent in pursuance of the notice

[2023/RJJD/003537] (3 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

dated 04/02/2014, the mining lease of the petitioner was

cancelled vide order dated 24/02/2015. Against the order of

cancellation dated 24/02/2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal

which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order

dated 18/11/2021. During the pendency of the appeal, the

petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,21,366/- on 06/07/2015.

In the meantime, the State Government also floated an Amnesty

Scheme for deposition of the outstanding amount from the lease

holders. The petitioner, in pursuance of the Amnesty Scheme,

deposited the entire amount due and a receipt was issued to him

which is placed on record as Annexure-4(E-challan dated

23/03/2021). The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of

the petitioner on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' was

not issued by the respondents, although the Appellate Authority

has taken note of the fact that the amount due to the Government

has been deposited by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was depositing the requisite amounts due to the Government till

he was issued a notice dated 04/02/2014 as the same was his first

default. Learned counsel further submits that since the requisite

amount was not deposited within the stipulated period of fifteen

days, therefore, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide order dated

24/05/2015 cancelled the lease issued in favour of petitioner. The

order dated 24/02/2015 passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur

was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal and

during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner deposited the

entire amount due towards the State Government, though taking

[2023/RJJD/003537] (4 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

the benefit of Amnesty Scheme. Learned counsel submits that

though the Appellate Authority has taken note of the deposition of

the entire amount due in the order dated 18/11/2021 but merely

because 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued in favour of the

petitioner, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and the lease

granted in favour of the petitioner was not restored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in

the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14717/2016, decided on

06/11/2017) has taken a view that if certain dues towards the

dead rent are not deposited by a person, then harsh penalty of

cancellation of mining lease should not be resorted to. He

submits that in the present case, the petitioner has not deposited

the dead rent for certain period for which he has been penalized

with the cancellation of his mining lease which is very harsh. He,

therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and

the orders dated 24/02/2015 and 18/11/2021 may be quashed

and set aside and the Mining Lease No.08/99 granted in favour of

the petitioner may be restored.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently

opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and submits that the amount due to the petitioner was

liable to be deposited by him within a period of fifteen days from

the date of issuance of the notice dated 04/02/2014. However, the

respondents were quite lenient in giving time to the petitioner for

almost one year and ultimately when the petitioner failed to

deposit the dead rent due, cancellation of the lease was made on

[2023/RJJD/003537] (5 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

24/02/2015. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits

that benefit of the Amnesty Scheme cannot be taken into

consideration for restoration of the mining lease of the petitioner

as the amount due to the State Government was liable to be

deposited in full without taking the benefit of Amnesty Scheme.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that deposition of the

amount under the Amnesty Scheme cannot make good the

amount otherwise due to the Government for restoration of the

lease of the petitioner as there was no interim order operating in

his favour and the possession of the mine was also taken over by

the respondents. Therefore, merely by depositing the amount due

under the Amnesty Scheme will not entitle the petitioner for

restoration of the mining lease from the date on which it was

cancelled. The petitioner will get the benefit only to the extent

that the recovery which was otherwise to be made under the LR

Act by the Department could be avoided. He further submits that

the judgment in the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company (supra)

has no application in the present case as the lease of the

petitioner was already cancelled. He, therefore, prays that the writ

petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case including the orders

impugned in this writ petition.

The facts stated above are not disputed by learned counsel

for the parties. The chronology of events shows that the petitioner

was issued a mining lease in the year 1989; for non-deposition of

the dead rent due, a notice was issued on 04/02/2014. Since the

[2023/RJJD/003537] (6 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

petitioner did not deposit the amount due in furtherance of the

notice issued, the cancellation of the mining lease of the petitioner

was done vide order dated 24/02/2015 against which the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and

the same was also rejected vide order dated 18/11/2021. During

the pendency of the appeal, certain amounts were deposited by

the petitioner and in the meantime the Government floated

Amnesty Scheme for deposition of certain dues to be deposited by

the lease holders. The petitioner, taking benefit of the Amnesty

Scheme, deposited the entire amount due to the Government vide

e-Challan dated 23/03/2021. The calculation of amount under the

Amnesty Scheme was made by the respondents. The Appellate

Authority has taken note of the amount deposited by the

petitioner from time to time and has come to the conclusion that

the entire amount in furtherance of the Amnesty Scheme 2020-21

has been deposited by the petitioner, however, rejected the appeal

on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' was not placed on

record.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that

since the entire amount due to the Government has been

deposited though under the Amnesty Scheme, but because the

'No Objection Certificate' was not issued, the Appellate Authority

has taken a hyper-technical reason while rejecting the appeal has

force and this Court feels that the hyper-technical objection taken

by the Appellate Authority needs to be rejected more particularly

when the 'No Objection Certificate' has been issued by the

respondent Department on 03/12/2021.

[2023/RJJD/003537] (7 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

It is also noted that the argument of learned counsel for the

respondent that the petitioner is liable to deposit the actual entire

amount due for restoration of his mine and the petitioner cannot

get the restoration of his mining lease on account of deposition of

the amount under the Amnesty Scheme is noted to be rejected

only on the ground that the Amnesty Scheme was floated to give

benefit to the mining lease holder. The Amnesty Scheme does not

make any distinction for the amount due to the persons in whose

favour the lease is in existence or the persons in whose case

leases have been cancelled. Therefore, once the petitioner has

deposited the entire amount due to the respondents in accordance

with the Amnesty Scheme floated, it can safely be presumed that

the entire amount due to the Department relating to dead rent

has been deposited and there is no impediment in the

continuation of the mining lease of the petitioner. Therefore, this

Court is also of the view that once the entire amount due to the

Government has been deposited though under the Amnesty

Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the

restoration of mining lease from the date from which it was

cancelled.

The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the

Amnesty Scheme cannot be used as a tool to set off the entire

amount due to the Government for the non-payment of the dead

rent and the same can be used only for avoiding the proceeding

under the LR Act is not sustainable in the facts of the present case

and deserves to be rejected on the ground that once the entire

amount due to the Government has been calculated and the

[2023/RJJD/003537] (8 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

Government itself is desirous to extend the benefit to the persons

like the petitioner through the Amnesty Scheme, then the benefits

of restoration of the mining lease cannot be denied.

It is also noted that the Appellate Authority has taken note of

the fact that the amount due to the Government was duly

deposited, however, since No objection certificate was not issued

in favour of the petitioner, only on this hyper-technical ground, the

Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, this

Court is also of the view that since the amount due to the

Government has been deposited and the 'No Objection Certificate'

thereafter has been issued, the mining lease of the petitioner is

liable to be restored from the date of its cancellation. The view

taken by this Court in the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company

(supra) that on account of certain amount due towards non-

deposition of the dead rent, extreme penalty of cancellation of

mining lease cannot be resorted to, also holds good in the present

case and, therefore, the extreme action of the respondent in

cancellation of the lease for non-deposition of the dead rent due is

also not sustainable.

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition

merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The orders dated

24/02/2015 and 18/11/2021 respectively are quashed and set

aside and the mining lease of the petitioner is ordered to be

restored from the date of its cancellation.

It is made clear that after deposition of the entire amount

under the Amnesty Scheme, if any amount is due to the

[2023/RJJD/003537] (9 of 9) [CW-1414/2022]

respondents to be paid by the petitioner, the respondents will be

at liberty to raise the demand in accordance with law.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1414/2022 :

In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1410/2022, the present writ petition is also

allowed and the orders dated 23/03/2015 and 18/11/2021

respectively are quashed and set aside and the mining lease of the

petitioner is ordered to be restored from the date of its

cancellation.

It is made clear that after deposition of the entire amount

under the Amnesty Scheme, if any amount is due to the

respondents to be paid by the petitioner, the respondents will be

at liberty to raise the demand in accordance with law.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 2-3-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)