Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 18465U / 2026M/S B.R. Mineral ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:24232) on 12 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:24232]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10106/2026
M/s B.r. Mineral And Mining, 1 St. Floor, Plot No. 1, Byepass
Chauhara Bhuwana, Udaipur. Through Partner - Hari Singh S/o
Shri Dhan Phool Meena Age About 51 Years, R/o - 23, Mahadev
Nagar, Near Pathik Hotel Pindwara, District - Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Mines And
Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur.
3. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Dungarpur.
4. Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology
Department, Udaipur.
5. Vs Safety Enterprise (Opc), Pvt. Ltd., 47, Sundar Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order 12/05/2026
1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers:
"(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the demand order & show-cause notice dated 01/04/2026 (Annex. 8) & 13.02.2026 (Annex. 6) along with the consequential demand, issued by the respondent authorities, as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction;
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action, including cancellation or suspension of the petitioner's mining lease (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (2 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] (M.L. No. 14/2020), pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned show-cause notice and demand;
(c) And direct to respondent department to supply the copy of drone report and also prepared a drone report after examining the material available on record in presence of the petitioner.
(d) In the alternative, direct the respondents to conduct a fresh inspection/survey of the mining lease area strictly in accordance with law by adopting physical measurement through inch-tape, GPS/DGS etc. considering existing reference points, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;
(d) Grant any other relief(s), direction(s) or order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice."
2. While elucidating facts of present case, learned counsel for petitioner stated that mining lease bearing M.L. No. 14/2020 (Annexure-1) was granted to petitioner firm on 02.02.2022 for a period of 50 years for mineral Quartz near village Kariyana, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur. It is contended that petitioner is having all the required permissions / clearance / consents and has undertaken the mining activity strictly in accordance with terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
2.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No.5, without prior intimation to petitioner and in his absence, conducted a drone survey on 31.12.2025 through a private firm. It is further contended that, without verifying the authenticity of the drone survey and without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the impugned show cause notice dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure-6) came to be issued alleging illegal mining and misuse of ravannas by the petitioner. By said notice, petitioner was (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (3 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] directed to submit a reply along with relevant documents, failing which a demand of Rs.1,11,86,862/- was proposed to be raised against petitioner.
2.2 It was contended that, pursuant to said notice, petitioner submitted a detailed reply (Annexure-7), however, despite the same, respondent No.3 proceeded to issue the demand notice dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure-8), raising a demand of Rs.1,11,86,862/- against the petitioner. 2.3 Learned counsel for petitioner stated that even the copy of drone survey report has not been supplied to the petitioner, which is the sole basis of consequent demand notice issued against the petitioner. It is also contended that the reply though submitted but has not been considered while issuing final demand notice.
3. Per contra, learned AAG Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, appearing for the respondent-Department, submitted that drone survey is one of the most scientific and reliable methods of conducting a survey. It was, therefore, contended that consequential demand notice has been validly issued on the basis of scientific findings derived from such survey.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material available on record.
5. In considered opinion of this Court, the action of respondents in conducting the drone survey without prior intimation to the petitioner, coupled with their failure to furnish a copy of the survey report before issuance of the impugned demand notice, is in clear violation of the settled principles of natural justice. Any adverse action taken without affording an opportunity of hearing or (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (4 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] disclosure of the relevant record, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The procedure adopted by respondents, therefore, strikes at the very root of fairness and renders the impugned demand notice dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure-8) legally unsustainable.
5.1 Recently, this Hon'ble High Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3778/2026; Mohd. Sabeer Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors., undertook a detailed examination of legal position concerning principles of natural justice required to be followed in matters involving drone surveys and analysed various judicial pronouncements pertaining to reliance upon such survey reports. The Court, in the said judgment, held that any action founded upon a drone survey report, without prior notice to the affected party and without supplying a copy of the report so as to enable such party to effectively controvert the material relied upon, would be violative of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative action. It was further observed that before taking any adverse action on the basis of a drone survey, the affected person must be afforded an adequate and meaningful opportunity of hearing, failing which the consequential proceedings would stand vitiated in law. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
"6. In considered view of this Court, non-disclosure of adverse material to the petitioner, fundamentally denies an effective hearing, as enshrined in the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice. Without access to the precise data as mentioned in the said drone survey report underpinning (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (5 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] the allegations, the petitioner remains bereft of any meaningful opportunity to contest veracity of the countervailing evidence. The same strikes at the root of procedural fairness and therefore, renders the resultant notice arbitrary.
7. 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 same was relied upon in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12398/2024; Abhimanyu Choudhary v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12110/2024; Paras Devi v. State of Rajasthan. The relevant paragraphs of Meghraj Singh Shekhawat (supra) are 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 (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (6 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] 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 setaside."
8. 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 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."
9. Therefore, the non-supply of the drone survey report to the petitioner is contrary to the principles of natural justice, and on this ground alone, the notice dated 04.12.2025 deserves to be quashed. This obligation becomes even more stringent in view of the circular dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the authorities have been mandated to issue a notice prior to inspection of mines and, as far as possible, to conduct such inspection in the presence of the mining lessee or his representative. The circular further provides that after the inspection, a copy of the inspection report should be made available to the lessee while issuing any legal (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (7 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] notice. The relevant part of the said circular is reproduced herein below:
^^[kuu iV~Vk/kkjh ds [kku fujh{k.k djus ls iwoZ fujh{k.k dk uksfVl rkehy djk;k tkuk lqfuf"pr djsa rFkk [kuu iV~Vs dk ;Fkk laHko [kuu iV~Vk/kkjh@izfrfuf/k dh mifLFkfr esa gh [kkuksa dk fujh{k.k fd;k tk,a rFkk fujh{k.k mijkUr iV~Vk/kkjh dks fof/kd uksfVl tkjh djrs le; fujh{k.k fjiksVZ dh izfr miyC/k djkosaA^^
10. Moreover, the mere inclusion of selective particulars from the drone survey report, as per subjective satisfaction regarding adequacy of details / particulars by respondents, cannot be regarded as sufficient compliance with the requirement of affording a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, violation of the principles of natural justice is manifest and apparent on the face of the record in the present case. In this view of matter, the notice impugned cannot be allowed to be sustained."
5.2 Moreover, learned AAG failed to controvert the factual averments of the petitioner, which are duly supported by documents issued by the respondent-Department itself, clearly demonstrating that no prior notice was given to petitioner before conducting the drone survey and that a copy of the drone survey report was also not furnished to him.
5.3 Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that impugned show cause notice (Annexure-6), having been issued on the basis of a drone survey conducted without any prior notice to the petitioner, and the consequential demand notice (Annexure-8), issued without furnishing a copy of the said survey report to the petitioner, are in clear and gross violation of the settled principles of natural justice. Such action which strikes at the very root of (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:24232] (8 of 8) [CW-10106/2026] fairness has been consistently deprecated by this Court in a catena of decisions as mentioned above.
6. In view of aforesaid reasons and judicial pronouncements, the present writ petition stands allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 13.02.2026 and consequent demand notice dated 01.04.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is given to respondent-authorities to conduct fresh survey after giving prior notice to petitioner and in his presence. Any consequential proceedings, if warranted, shall thereafter be undertaken strictly in accordance with law while scrupulously adhering to the principles of natural justice as well as the guidelines contained in circular dated 06.03.2025 issued by the respondent-Department.
7. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 15-sumer-vallabhi/-
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:29:24 AM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 12:08:35 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)