Dismissed

M/S Shekhawat Associates v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2024CW/13480/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Rajasthan hearing dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty order for loss of bajri. The Court held that since a statutory remedy of appeal exists under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, and disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ petition is not maintainable. An appeal liberty was granted with specific timelines.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within 15 days; stay application dismissed; if penalty is deposited, appellate court to decide within three months of appeal filing.

M/S Shekhawat Associates Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35095]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13480/2024

¶4

M/s Shekhawat Associates, Through Mr. Chandra Bhan Singh Shekhawat Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 575-A, Krishi Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Directorate Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan Through The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur.

¶9

Office Of The Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur Range Through The Additional Director (Mines), Khanij Bhawan, Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur.

¶10

Superinteding Mining Engineer, Bhilwara Circle, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bhilwara At Khanij Bhawan, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.

¶11

Mining Engineer, Dept. Of Mines And Geology- Bhilwara At Khanij Bhawan, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. David Mehla through VC for Mr.
	Sandeep Singh Shekhawat
	Mr. YuvrajSingh Mertiya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi, AAG assisted byMr. Gaurav Bishnoi

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

23/08/2024

¶17

By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.06.2024, whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,325/- as a penalty for loss of 216.65 ton Bajri.

[2024:RJ-JD:35095]

[CW-13480/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before imposing the penalty, the respondents have not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order dated 23.06.2024 is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the impugned order dated 23.06.2024 does not indicate as to whether the same is a notice or an order and, therefore, the petitioner cannot even prefer an appeal.

¶23

Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that even if, the communication dated 23.06.2024 is considered to be an order, the petitioner is required to avail statutory remedy provided under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

¶24

He further submitted that the case involves highly disputed questions of fact and, therefore, remedy of writ is not proper. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Since, statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Rules, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, more particularly because a number of disputed questions of facts are involved.

¶25

The writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in accordance with law. 9. In case, an appeal is preferred within a period of 15 days from today, the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law, without raising any objection with regard to delay as the petitioner has been bonafidely pursuing the present writ petition.

¶26

(3 of 3) [CW-13480/2024]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JD:35095]

¶28

In case, the petitioner deposits the amount of penalty before filing the appeal, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal within a period of three months from today. In the event of appeal being allowed, the amount shall forthwith be refunded or adjusted while finalizing the accounts of the petitioner.

¶29

Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶30

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶31

286-raksha/-

M/S Shekhawat Associates v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shekhawat Associates 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Chandra Vs the Board of Revenue

Bhagirath Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

S.R. Rohila Charitable Trust Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

L.N. Memorial Para Medical Institute Vs the State of Rajasthan