Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abhimanyu Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40933) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:40933]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12398/2024
Abhimanyu Choudhary S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of C-57, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Directorate Of Mines And Geology- Rajasthan, Through
The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij
Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur.
3. Office Of The Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur Range
Through The Additional Director (Mines), Khanij Bhawan,
Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur.
4. Superintending Mining Engineer, Bhilwara Circle,
Department Of Mines And Geology, Bhilwara At Khanij
Bhawan, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
5. Mining Engineer, Dept. Of Mines And Geology, Bhilwara At
Khanij Bhawan, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat,
through VC with
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Mertiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
by Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while
passing the order impugned dated 07.06.2024 against the
petitioner neither any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner nor copy of the survey report on the basis of which the
[2024:RJ-JD:40933] (2 of 3) [CW-12398/2024]
order impugned has been passed by the respondents was
supplied.
2. Learned counsel submitted that this Court has allowed a
similar writ petition vide order dated 12.07.2024 passed in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9670/2024 (Meghraj Singh Shekhawat Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
3. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General
submitted that the petitioner is required to prefer an appeal
against the order aforesaid, if he is in any manner aggrieved with
the decision of the respondent No.5 - Mining Engineer, who has
raised demand against the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
the judgment dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Court in Meghraj
Singh's case (supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of the
present writ petition in the same terms.
5. In the case of Meghraj Singh Shekhawat (supra) this Court
has observed thus:-
"6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The facts of the case do not require much
attention of the Court, particularly when the factum
of notice being issued on the basis of drone survey
report dated 14.06.2023 not in dispute so also the
fact that copy of the said report was not provided to
the petitioner.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated
13.05.2024 is in teeth of principles of natural
justice, which enjoins upon State authorities to
provide copy of the material being used against the
citizens.
9. Since, the order impugned is against the basic
tenets of law and facets of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, this Court is not much
convinced by the preliminary objection raised by
[2024:RJ-JD:40933] (3 of 3) [CW-12398/2024]
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned AAG that a remedy
of appeal/revision is available to the petitioner.
10. Exercise of writ jurisdiction is a matter of
discretion. When the facts are admitted and the
violation of principles of natural justice is writ large,
this Court would be loath in asking the petitioner to
go to appellate authority. That apart, the
observation made by this Court about requirement
of providing copy of drone report or survey report
would requires the authorities to follow the
principles of natural justice.
11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and
the order impugned dated 13.05.2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
12. Respondent No.5 is directed to issue a fresh
show cause notice to the petitioner while enclosing
a copy of the drone survey report. While issuing
notice, the respondent No.5 shall allow 15 days'
time to the petitioner to file reply/response,
whereafter, the respondent No.5 shall pass a fresh
order in accordance with law.
13. Stay petition also stands disposed of."
6. The present writ petition is also allowed and the impugned
demand notice dated 07.06.2024 is hereby quashed.
7. The respondent No.5 - Mining Engineer is directed to issue a
show cause notice to the petitioner while enclosing a copy of the
drone survey report. While issuing notice, the respondent No.5
shall allow 15 days' time to the petitioner to file reply/response,
whereafter, the respondent No.5 shall pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
8. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
71-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
