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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 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;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged."
8.2 Therefore, since the order impugned is in teeth of principles of natural justice, the objection regarding availability of alternate remedy is not tenable.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition is, hereby, allowed and the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure-8) is hereby, quashed and set aside.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13966] (10 of 10) [CW-15658/2025]
10. However, it will be open for respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, while adhering the principles of natural justice during the entire process. Since the inspection has not been done without first serving notice upon the petitioner and in absence of petitioner, it will also be open for the respondents to undertake fresh inspection while complying the circular dated 06.03.2025 issued by Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
11. Stay application and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 13-shashikant/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 04:57:14 PM) (Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:51:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)