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 (Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:36:06 PM) [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 (Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:36:06 PM) [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/-
(Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:36:06 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)