M/S. Corporate Marbles Private Limited vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 5943 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5943 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S. Corporate Marbles Private Limited vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:17767-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 253/2026

M/s. Corporate Marbles Private Limited, Registered Address 37,
Detya Marg, L. N. Mishra Marg, Ward No.4, Room No.4, Chamber
No.2, Udaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Director-Shantilal Lal
Singhvi S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Singhvi, Aged About 72 Years,
Resident Of 53/01, Old Fatehpura, Seva Mandir Road, Kharol
Colony, Udaipur, (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       The    State      Of     Rajasthan,          Through       Its   Secretary,
         Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
         Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
2.       Joint Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Govt.
         Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3.       The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And
         Geology, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4.       The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
         Udaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Asst. by
                                   Mr. Abhishek Mehta
                                   Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
                                   Mr. Chirag Kalani
                                   Ms. Mansi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG



HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

16/04/2026

1. The short question involved in the present appeal is whether

the option of cancelling the lease should have been resorted to

when the appellant was ready to deposit the unpaid dead rent

along with interest.

(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 02:05:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17767-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-253/2026]

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits

that the Division Bench of this Court has, time and again, held

that if there are two options of imposing a fine and/or cancelling

the lease, the lesser of the two should be first opted. Learned

Senior counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by one of

us while sitting singly in the S.B.C.W.P. 5368/2025 (Takhat

Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) where a similar view has been

taken.

3. Learned Senior counsel has also pointed out that while the

lease was cancelled in haste, the appellant had already deposited

the entire amount of dead rent along with interest within 15 days.

The appellant is also ready to deposit any amount which may be

imposed on them by way of penalty.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the conduct of the appellant cannot be

said to be such where the said benefit should be granted as the

amount of dead rent as well as other dues were not being paid

time and again.

5. The change in address was also not provided to the Mining

Department where they could be informed about payment of dead

rent. Learned counsel has also invited our attention towards the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, where the relevant

rules have been quoted as follows: -

"Rule 18(21)(a) : In case of any breach on the part of the lessee of any covenant or condition contained in the lease, the competent authority may determine the lease and take possession of the said premises and forfeit the security money or in the alternative may impose payment of a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of annual dead rent of the lease. Such action shall not be taken unless the

(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 02:05:00 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17767-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-253/2026]

lessee has failed to remedy the breach after serving of 15 days notice;..."

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

option of cancellation of lease as resorted to by the authorities

was justified and did not warrant any interference.

7. We have carefully considered the judgment which is passed

by the learned Single Judge and also the submissions advanced at

Bar. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

08.07.2019 passed in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Sojat

Lime Company in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 200/2019 has held

as under:

"This Court notices that as urged on behalf of the State, Rule 18(21)(a) undoubtedly confers discretion upon the State to adopt either the course of cancellation of the lease straightway after issuing notice or to recover twice the amount of rent. In the present case, the learned Single Judge was largely influenced by the fact that the State did not, having regard to the overall circumstances, explore the possibility of exercising the lesser drastic measure of recovering the lease amounts along with penalty amounts as imposed and instead proceedings straightway cancelling the lease deed.

This Court is of the opinion that no fault can be found with the impugned order, particularly since the learned Single Judge has preserved the discretion of the State to determine the penalty/damages in terms of the second part of Rule 18(21)(a) of the Rules of 1986. The measure is also in accordance with doctrine of proportionality.