Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

M/S Mahalaxmi Grit Udyog vs State Of Raj & Ors on 9 February, 2011

Author: Mohammad Rafiq

Bench: Mohammad Rafiq

    

 
 
 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21/2011

M/s. Mahalaxmi Grit Udyog Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Date of Order ::: 09.02.2011

Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq


Shri Sunil Nath, counsel for petitioner
####

By the Court:-

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated 02.06.2010 by which penalty in sum of Rs.7,54,350/- was imposed on petitioner and he has been called upon to deposit the same within a period of fifteen days.

Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that notice for this proceeding was sent to petitioner vide letter dated 02.06.2010 and curiously on same day impugned order was passed. Even this notice was received by petitioner on 02.12.2010, which is evident from envelope, photo copy whereof is placed on record. Learned counsel submitted that reference of previous notice in impugned order is there but no mention is made of reply thereto submitted by petitioner and several documents produced by petitioner.

It is contended that petitioner cannot now file appeal before the Director because limitation for filing appeal has expired and petitioner came to learn about said order dated 02.06.2010 only recently.

Having regard to nature of controversy and considering fact that order is appealable under Section 43 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, I require petitioner to approach appellate authority now within a period of thirty days. Petitioner would be entitled to raise all arguments which he is raising before this court about non-consideration of documents filed by him in response to notice and not providing him opportunity of hearing for want of service of notice in time. It is expected of appellate authority to decide the same as expeditiously as possible considering all arguments, by speaking order. Petitioner would also be entitled to pray for interim relief before appellate authority, which, in its discretion, shall consider.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

//Jaiman//