[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Kamla Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:13966]                      (1 of 10)                         [CW-15658/2025]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15658/2025

Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Sh Gopalram, Aged About 53 Years,
R/o Village Lodsar, Tehsil Ladnun, District Kuchaman-Didwana
(Rajasthan)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       The    State      Of        Rajasthan,       Through       Its     Secretary,
         Department         Of        Mines     And       Geology,        Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2.       The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, District
         Udaipur, Rajasthan
3.       The    Additional          Director,   Department          Of     Mines   And
         Geology, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4.       The    Superintendent            Mining      Engineer,      Ajmer       Circle,
         Department Of Mines And Geology, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5.       The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology,
         Makrana, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


 For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Ankit Somani
 For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
                                      Mr. Gourav Bishnoi


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

24/03/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order

dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent

department, whereby penalty of ₹18,94,250 has been imposed

upon the petitioner on the ground of alleged illegal mining.

2. While elucidating the facts of the present case, learned

counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner holds a mining lease

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (2 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

bearing M.L. No.400/05 situated at Khasra No. 304, Halka

Parbatsar, admeasuring 10,000 square metres. It is submitted that

the petitioner's brother, namely Mr. Baluram, lodged a complaint

dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure-1) before the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Parbatsar, regarding illegal mining being carried out in the vicinity

of the petitioner's lease area. Pursuant thereto, on the same date,

the SDO, Parbatsar directed the Tehsildar, Parbatsar, the SHO,

Parbatsar, and the Mining Engineer, Makrana to take appropriate

action on the said complaint.

2.1 He further submits that respondents issued a notice dated

22.07.2022 (Annexure-2) to petitioner alleging illegal mining

beyond the limits of her mining lease area. In response thereto,

petitioner submitted a reply dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-3), inter

alia denying the allegations of illegal mining and stated that, on an

earlier occasion as well, a complaint had been lodged before the

SDO, Parbatsar regarding illegal mining being carried out by other

persons in the vicinity of petitioner's lease area. The petitioner

also requested that a detailed inquiry be conducted in this regard

and that notice dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-2) be quashed.

2.2 To petitioner's utter surprise, respondent-Mining Engineer

issued a subsequent notice dated 01.02.2024 in the name of Shri

Gopiram Jhakhar, petitioner's deceased husband, alleging illegal

mining and proposing imposition of penalty of ₹18,74,250. In

response, petitioner submitted detailed reply (Annexure-5), which

was received by respondent on 22.02.2024, inter alia stating that

one Mr. Prakash Kheria, resident of Parbatsar, had been carrying

out illegal mining on government land in the vicinity of petitioner's

lease area for a considerable period using heavy machinery, and

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (3 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

that pursuant to the complaint dated 07.01.2021 and FIR had

already been registered against him. It was further pointed out

that proceedings initiated against petitioner's husband, was wholly

untenable, as he had passed away on 22.10.2015 and no legal

proceedings could be sustained against a deceased person.

2.3 Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that, in

relation to the FIR lodged against Mr. Prakash Kheria for illegal

mining, police authorities after conducting a detailed investigation,

have filed a charge-sheet and prima facie found him guilty of

carrying out illegal mining in the vicinity of the petitioner's lease

area.

2.4 It is further contended that despite submission of a detailed

reply dated 14.02.2024 to the notice dated 01.02.2024, the same

was not considered by respondent No.5, who erroneously

proceeded on the premise that no reply had been filed.

Consequently, the alleged non-submission of reply was treated as

an admission of illegal mining on the part of the petitioner and

penalty of ₹18,94,250 was imposed vide office order dated

22.03.2024 (Annexure-8).

2.5 Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for

petitioner contended that the same is wholly arbitrary and

unjustified, inasmuch as the reply submitted by petitioner which

was duly received in the office of respondent No. 5 on 22.02.2024,

has not been considered by respondent authorities. It is

contended that finding recorded in the impugned order dated

22.03.2024 (Annexure-8) to the effect that no reply was

submitted is patently false, and consequently, the presumption

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (4 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

drawn regarding admission of illegal mining on the part of

petitioner is unsustainable in law.

2.6 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a

matter of fact, petitioner's son had submitted a detailed complaint

to the SDO, Nagaur as far back as in the year 2021 regarding

illegal mining being carried out by other persons in the vicinity of

petitioner's lease area. It is further contended that, in relation to

the FIR lodged in this regard, the police authorities, upon

investigation, have prima facie found Mr. Prakash Kheria guilty of

illegal mining. In such circumstances, the imposition of penalty

upon petitioner is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in eyes of

law.

2.7 Learned counsel for petitioner contended that inspection

dated 28.01.2024, pertaining to the alleged illegal mining, was not

conducted in presence of petitioner, nor was a copy of the said

inspection report ever supplied to the petitioner. It is thus

contended, that imposition of penalty is in clear violation of the

principles of natural justice and, therefore, order impugned

(Annexure-8) should be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent raised

preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ

petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative

remedy under Rule 63 and 64 of Rules of 2017.

3.1 It was further submitted that action of respondent-

department is wholly justified and in consonance with the

provisions of Rules of 2017. Learned counsel contended that

show-cause notice dated 01.02.2024 was duly issued to the

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (5 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

petitioner; however, no reply was submitted by her, and therefore

order dated 22.03.2024 has been rightly passed.

3.2 It was also urged that present writ petition has been filed

merely with an intent to delay and defer the recovery proceedings

initiated against the petitioner pursuant to show-cause notice

dated 01.02.2024 and the consequential demand notice dated

22.03.2024.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. A bare perusal of impugned order dated 22.03.2024

(Annexure-8) reveals that after issuance of two notices,

respondent No. 5 proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of illegal

mining and imposed the penalty solely on the ground that no reply

to the notice dated 01.02.2024 was submitted by the petitioner.

The alleged non-response or silence on the part of the petitioner

has thus, been treated as an admission of guilt against her.

5.1 This Court finds that the basis of findings recorded by

respondent-authority is patently false and baseless. Bare perusal

of reply dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure-5) clearly demonstrates that

the same bears an acknowledgment of receipt, along with the

seal, signature, and date i.e., 22.02.2024, of the office of

respondent No. 5. Moreover, a specific plea has been taken by

petitioner in the writ petition regarding submission of the said

reply and its non-consideration, which has not been specifically

denied by respondents in their reply. Therefore, the sole basis for

holding the petitioner guilty and imposing the penalty, namely,

alleged non-submission of reply, is unsustainable.

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (6 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

5.2 Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in M/S

Prateek Minerals & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D. B.

Civil Special Appeal No. 162/2025 held that authorities are

under an obligation to consider each and every objection / reply /

response before ascertaining any violation. Relevant paragraph is

reproduced herein below:

"9. We must hasten to clarify by way of abundant caution that contents of the notice are mere tentative view subject to objections/reply which have already been filed by the appellants. The authority would be obliged under the law to consider each and every objection before arriving at a conclusion whether any violation has been done by the appellants. The objections to site inspection report are also required to be examined on its own merits and the site inspection report cannot be accepted without consideration of the objections/reply of the appellants."

5.3 Failure on part of respondent-authority to consider the

replies submitted by the petitioner dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure-

3) and 14.02.2024 (Annexure-5) amounts to a clear violation of

the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it denies the

petitioner a fair and effective opportunity of being heard and

renders the decision-making process arbitrary and unsustainable

in law. The impugned order deserves to be quashed on this

ground alone.

6. It is also pertinent to note that respondents have failed to

take into consideration a material aspect of the matter, namely,

that much prior to issuance of the show-cause notice, the

petitioner had submitted a detailed complaint on 07.01.2021

(Annexure-1) before the SDO regarding illegal mining by other

persons. The respondents have further failed to dispute that,

pursuant to FIR No. 31/2022, the investigating agency, after

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (7 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

collecting evidence and recording statements, filed a charge-sheet

dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure-7) exclusively against Mr. Prakash

Kheria, thereby exonerating the petitioner and her late husband

from any involvement in the alleged illegal mining activities. None

of these relevant and material facts have been considered by the

respondents, which vitiates the impugned action.

7. Moreover, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that, prior to

issuance of the impugned notice, an inspection dated 28.01.2024

was conducted. However, no prior intimation of such inspection

was given, nor was it conducted in the presence of the petitioner,

and even a copy of the inspection report was not supplied to her.

This material fact has also not been disputed by the respondents.

7.1 It has been consistently held by this Hon'ble High Court, in a

catena of decisions, that any inspection conducted without prior

notice, in the absence of the lease-holder, and followed by non-

supply of the inspection report, amounts to a violation of the

principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the entire

subsequent proceedings. This Hon'ble High Court in Babu Bhai

Patel v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 18885/2024 quashed a demand notice on the ground that

no notice was given before undertaking drone survey. The relevant

paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

"6. Since no notice was given to the petitioner before undertaking the survey through drone and the order of recovery has been passed by the respondents, as such, the action of the respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Mewar Marbles (supra).

7. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition is allowed and the demand notice dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.1) is quashed and set aside. The State Government is given liberty to undertake fresh survey through physical

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (8 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

mode/drone after giving notice to the petitioner and thereafter if any recovery is due to the petitioner, the same be made in accordance with law."

7.2 Moreover, this Hon'ble High Court in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 9670/2024; Meghraj Singh Shekhawat v. State

of Rajasthan & Ors., has held that in consonance with the

principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the State

authorities to furnish a copy of the material sought to be relied

upon against a person, so as to enable him to effectively defend

himself. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:

"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 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."

7.3 Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order dated

22.03.2024 (Annexure-8) is in gross violation of the principles of

natural justice. The inspection forming the very basis of the

impugned action was conducted without prior notice, in the

absence of the petitioner, and without supplying a copy of the

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13966] (9 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]

inspection report, thereby denying the petitioner an effective

opportunity to controvert the material relied upon against her. In

such circumstances, the impugned order stands vitiated on

account of denial of fair hearing and thus, cannot be sustained in

the eye of law.

8. Although an objection regarding the availability of an

alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order dated

22.03.2024 has been raised, this Court finds that the detailed

reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered at all by

the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order.

Such non-consideration goes to the root of the matter and

amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice,

inasmuch as the defence of the petitioner has been completely

disregarded.

8.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v.

State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 expounded upon the rule of

alternate remedy at great length and reiterated four exceptions to

the said rule. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

"27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;