Disposed

Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2023CW/5078/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court disposed of the matter by following a prior order in connected petitions. The court quashed specific demand orders and related proceedings, directing authorities to reassess facts and law before passing further orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of demand orders dated 28.08.2021 and 03.12.2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom; liberty to respondent authorities to re-examine facts and pass appropriate orders.

Gulab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:35335]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5078/2022

¶4

Gulab Singh S/o Shri Hukum Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Kalvi, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Director (Mines), Prayavaran And Vikas, Directorate, Mines And Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶9

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

¶10

The Assistant Mining Engineer, Gotan, District Nagaur. 5. The Additional Director (Mines), Mines And Geology Department, Jaipur Region, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Sukh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. DigvijaySingh Jasol,A.G.C.

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

16/10/2023

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the order passed by 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

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:35335]

[CW-5078/2022]

Petition No.14466/2021) and other connected matters. The order

¶22

dated 17.01.2023 reads as under:

¶23

“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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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 respondent-authorities, and that therefore, it was incorrectly found that the petitioner was allegedly carried out illegal excavation and mining activities.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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 respondentauthorities are at liberty to re- examine and reassess the

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:35335]

[CW-5078/2022]

complete facts and the laws applicable to the instant cases and pass appropriate orders, if required, in accordance with law.

¶34

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

¶35

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 17.01.2023 passed in the case of Sita Ram (supra) . Accordingly, the demand orders dated 28.08.2021 and 03.12.2021 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.

¶36

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶37

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶38

196-Zeeshan

Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Singh v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jbs Alloy and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico)

M/S. Somani Chemical Industries Vs Indusind Bank

Nathu Ram Vs Ram Karan

Bheekh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Bhatia Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.