Dismissed

Smt. Keshwar Devi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 May 2023CW/1741/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single writ petition, involving mining lease demands, was disposed of by following the ratio of a batch of connected cases. The Court quashed the impugned demand orders and admitted proceedings, allowing authorities to re-examine facts and law accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Demand orders dated 28.08.2021 and 29.11.2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed and set aside; respondents at liberty to re-examine facts and law.

Smt. Keshwar Devi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023/RJJD/013988]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1741/2022

¶4

Smt. Keshwar Devi W/o Ugra Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Riyanbadi, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

¶9

The Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

¶10

The Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Gotan, District Nagaur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D.S. Sodha.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. DigvijaySingh Jasol,Dy. G.C.

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

08/05/2023

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the order passed by a this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4836/2022 (Tara Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 06.02.2023.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14466/2021) and other connected matters. The order dated 17.01.2023 reads as under:

[2023/RJJD/013988]

[CW-1741/2022]

(2 of 3)

“1. The controversy in the batch of connected petitions is similar and for the purpose of adjudication of the said matters, the first petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14466/2021, is taken as the lead case.

¶22

2. Brief facts as placed before this Court are that in the year 2014, the petitioner submitted an application under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 for the allotment of a mining lease, on his Khatedari land situated near Village Rohisa, Tehsil Riyanbadi, District Nagaur, for the excavation of mineral bajri. And that, after the compliance of the necessary formalities, the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner-Sita Ram.

¶23

3. The first petition assails the impugned demand order, dated 02.09.2021, at Annex-14, issued by the respondent no.3-Asst. Mining Engineer, Gotan, District Nagaur, and prays that the respondent-authorities be directed to not take any coercive action against the petitioners and in case any recovery/order is made pursuant to the said demand order, then the same may be accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶24

4. Mr Hemant Ballani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned demand orders are not sustainable, as the factual foundation for the same, being that the density of the mineral bajri was erroneously calculated by the respondentauthorities, and that therefore, it was incorrectly found that the petitioner was allegedly carried out illegal excavation and mining activities.

¶25

5. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities fairly submits that the density of the mineral bajri was considered at 2.25 while calculating the penalty for illegal excavation and notices were issued to the mining lease holders accordingly by the respondent no.3-Asst. mining Engineer, Gotan, District Nagaur. However, the Bajri Lease Association, Riyan Bari submitted a representation for examination of density as per report of NABL certified laboratory, according to which, density of mineral bajri was shown at an average of 1.6.

¶26

6. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for both the parties have jointly made a request for quashing of the impugned demand orders, so that the respondent-authorities can reassess and re-examine the amount of penalty to be levied, if any, against the petitioners, after examining the complete facts and laws applicable to the instant petitions.

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/013988]

[CW-1741/2022]

7. In light of such joint submission made on behalf of the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to quash the impugned demand orders, dated 02.09.2021, 11.11.2019 and 30.09.2020 respectively, and all the proceedings emanating thereof. The concerned respondent-authorities are at liberty to reexamine and reassess the complete facts and the laws applicable to the instant cases and pass appropriate orders, if required, inaccordance with law.

¶31

8. Therefore, the batch of connected petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to cost.”

¶32

The present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed in the case of Sita Ram (supra) . Accordingly, the demand order dated 28.08.2021 & order dated 29.11.2021 and all the proceedings emanating thereof are quashed and set aside. However, the concerned respondent authorities are at liberty to re-examine and reassess the complete facts and the law applicable to the instant case and pass appropriate order, if required, strictly in accordance with law.

¶33

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶34

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶35

163-/Jitender//-

Smt. Keshwar Devi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Keshwar Devi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.V. Education and Research Society Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Global and Company Vs Dy. Director

Gaindi Devi Memorial Educational Society Vs the State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Vs Shri Nakulal

Jaspreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Swami Chela Shri Ramniwas Swami Vs Smt. Kamla Devi