Allowed

Kailash Chand Jain S/O Shri Phool Chand Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Sept 2025CW/12738/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ challenge against an appellate order that remanded a penalty case to the Mining Engineer without quashing the earlier penalty order. The Court held that upon remand, the appellate authority ought to have quashed the original order. Consequently, the appellate order was quashed and the matter was remitted to decide afresh.

What did the court decide?

The appellate order was quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Mining Engineer to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Kailash Chand Jain S/O Shri Phool Chand Jain Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12738/2025

¶3

Kailash Chand Jain S/o Shri Phool Chand Jain, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Kutti Mohalla, Tehsil Kaaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And Geology, Kota Zone, Kota (Raj.).

¶8

Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. AnuragSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rahul Lodha,Addl. GC

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

08/09/2025

¶14

By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Department of Mines and Geology, Kota Zone, Kota by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.08.2023 has been allowed and the matter has been remitted to the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology for deciding the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶15

[CW-12738/2025]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2023, the Mining Engineer has imposed penalty upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner against them, however, the same was allowed and the matter has been remitted, but the order passed by the Mining Engineer was not quashed as well as the imposition of penalty was also not set-aside and hence the order of penalty has remained as it is. Learned counsel submits that once the matter has been remitted then the order passed by the Mining Engineer should have been quashed and set-aside, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶18

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity as the matter has already been remitted to the Mining Engineer for re-consideration and for passing a reasoned and speaking order, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Perusal of the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Mining Engineer indicates that a penalty order has been passed against the petitioner against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority while entertaining the appeal has remanded the matter to the Mining Engineer to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a

¶21

[CW-12738/2025]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

reasoned and speaking order. But while passing the impugned order, the order passed by the Mining Engineer has not been quashed and the penalty imposed on the petitioner has also not been quashed and set-aside.

¶24

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the order of remand has been passed, the Appellate Court should have quashed and set-aside the impugned order passed by the Mining Engineer in toto, but instead of doing so, only order of remand has been passed.

¶25

Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶26

In view of above, the writ petition stands allowed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is modified and the order of imposing penalty by the Appellate Authority against the petitioner is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Mining Engineer to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶27

Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

Karan/23

Kailash Chand Jain S/O Shri Phool Chand Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand Jain S/O Shri Phool Chand Jain 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

Jagdish Chandra S/O Shri Ram Karan Yadav Vs District Collector

Pushpa Devi Wife of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Malpani Alias Govind Das Malpani H.U.F. Vs Smt. Annupurna Wife of Shri Gopal Ji.

Ghanshyam Khatik S/O Nangagram Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Narayan S/O Shri Bheru Lal Vs Board of Revenue

Sanjay Choudhary S/O Sh. Richhpal Singh Choudhary Vs the Union of India