Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tulsi Das Bharwani vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3410) on 20 January, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:3410]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 930/2026
Tulsi Das Bharwani S/o Jamat Das Baharwani, Aged About 64
Years, Resident Of E 44, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Joint Secretary (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology,
Directorate, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
5. The Mining Engineer Bhilwara, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Bumb
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG with
Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 20/01/2026
1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
A. issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, including a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 (Annexure A/6) issued by the Office of the Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice;
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 04:55:42 PM) (Downloaded on 20/01/2026 at 08:47:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3410] (2 of 3) [CW-930/2026] "B. declare the alleged drone survey, forming the sole basis of the impugned show cause notice, to be illegal, void, and non est in the eyes of law, having been conducted without prior notice or intimation to the petitioner and in violation of settled legal principles; C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is in favour of petitioner found by Hon'ble Court, may kindly be passed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents vide communication dated 23.12.2025 (Annex-6) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating in it that the drone survey was conducted on 27.11.2025 and thereafter it has been found that the petitioner has excavated the minerals in excess. He submit that the said show cause notice is not maintainable for the reason that before conducting the drone survey, the petitioner has not been afforded a notice prior to the said survey. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in SBCWP No.18885/2024 titled as Babu Bhai Patel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors and the said order is reproduced hereunder:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the demand notice dated 21.10.2024 issued by the Office of the Mining Engineer, Sirohi, whereby recovery order has been passed against the petitioner for excavating the mines in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been served with any notice before conducting the survey of the area in which the petitioner has been granted the lease for mining. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in D.B. Special Appeal No.398/2001 (M/s. Mewar Marbles Ltd. Vs. Government of Rajasthan) decided on 09.01.2002. He further submits that the order impugned (Annex.1) has been passed in violation of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned may be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that although the petitioner was served with a notice when the land of the petitioner was physically surveyed. However, while undertaking the survey through the drone, the notice was not (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 04:55:42 PM) (Downloaded on 20/01/2026 at 08:47:57 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3410] (3 of 3) [CW-930/2026] issued to the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the respondent-State may be given liberty to re-survey the area in question under the lease of the petitioner after giving him a proper notice.
5. I have considered the submissions made before this Court and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
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 dernand 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."
3. Learned AAG is not in a position to refute that the petitioner has not been afforded a notice prior to conduct the drone survey on 27.11.2025.
4. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in the case of Babu Bhai Patel (supra). The show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 (Annex-6), 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.
5. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/44- (Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 04:55:42 PM) (Downloaded on 20/01/2026 at 08:47:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)