2022 (9) TMI 1581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mining operation. 3. The relevant facts in brief as emerge from the memo of writ petition are that the petitioner is a partnership firm having in its favour a mining lease No. 03/1993, Village Bhonda Gaon, Jagjeevanpur, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur which, initially was issued for mineral Silica sand and later on, mineral masonry stone was also added therein. Validity of the mining lease is upto 9.6.2047 and the petitioner has environment clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest for the mining activities. The petitioner was served upon with a show cause notice dated 22.6.2020 by the respondents, whereby, alleging irregularities in the mining activities, a fine of Rs. 4,51,75,677 was proposed. The notice was replied by the petitioner on 6.8.2020. Vide order impugned dated 11.8.2020, a demand of Rs. 4,51,75,677/- was raised towards fine and compound fee alleging illegal excavation and transfer of the minerals. On petitioner's representation, the State Government, vide order dated 19.8.2020 constituted a three-member Committee to submit its report after enquiry within a period of a month. A two Member Committee constituted in pursuance of a corrigendum letter da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondents in their office and not at the site. Learned senior counsel submitted that although, presence of Shri Anil Parashar is reflected in the inspection report; but, he was neither petitioner's employee, nor its authorised representative. He submits that in any case, inspection carried out without prior notice is void ab initio. Inviting attention of this Court towards the inspection report dated 12.6.1993, learned senior counsel submitted that it reveals that before grant of mining lease No. 03/1993 to the petitioner firm, a pit measuring 200 feet x 70 feet x 70 feet was already in existence with excavation of 70880.57 tonne of mineral and this report has not been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned raising demand. Referring to the inspection report dated 9.4.2021, Shri Agarwal submitted that therein, recording a categorical finding that it was not possible to assess the exact status of the excavation as on 4.12.2019, the earlier inspection report dated 20.2.2020 has been assumed to be correct, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order impugned dated 30.12.2021 has been passed without suppl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide order dated 11.8.2020, was maintained. 9. Drawing attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 28(1) and Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for brevity-'the Rules of 2017'), learned State Counsel submitted that since the petitioner was found guilty of illegal mining and transportation of the minerals, the demand vide order dated 30.12.2021 has rightly been raised. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Shri Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel for the intervenor Shri Mukesh Chand, submitted that he was unceremoniously ousted from the partnership firm on 14.3.2016 and re-constitution of the petitioner firm is bad in law. He would submit that since re-constitution of the petitioner firm is in violation of the Rule 27 of the Rules of 2017, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. He, in support of submission, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog vs. State of Rajasthan- (2016) 4 SCC 469. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the status report dated 23.10.2019 furnished by District Industries Centre, Bharatpur to the Distr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der the RTI Act, 2005, have been relied upon by the petitioner firm to substantiate the averments made in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that inspections were carried out in presence of representative of the petitioner firm. 16. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the inspection report dated 20.2.2020 could not have been made basis of demand order inasmuch it was a table work having not been prepared at the site, cannot be countenanced. A perusal of the report dated 20.2.2020 reflects that it is based on the reports prepared by the Committee during the course of its inspection from 4.12.2019 to 20.12.2019. In view thereof, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in case of Grands Mining (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. 17. Submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that inspection by a two Member Committee on 9.4.2021 was bad in law as the State Government has, vide order dated 19.8.2020, appointed a three Member Committee to carry out inspection and submit its report within a period of one month, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as the inspection by a three....