Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur comprised three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the cancellation of a mining lease, the recovery demand for alleged unauthorized excavation, and the taking over of possession of the mine. The petitioners were Ankit Agarwal and Smt. Meena Bansal, while the respondents were the State of Rajasthan through its Mines and Geology Department and various mining officials. The dispute centered on a mining lease for rhyolite (masonry stone) near Village Modi Bhakari, Kharda, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali, originally granted in 1981 and subsequently mutated in favour of the petitioner Ankit Agarwal after the death of Smt. Vidhya Devi. A spot report dated 13.03.2014 had indicated no unauthorized mining in the preceding three years. However, an inspection on 04.09.2015 alleged excavation of 15,750 tonnes outside the lease boundary, leading to a Panchnama and a notice dated 14.10.2015 under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The petitioner disputed the allegations, and the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance), Jaipur, by letter dated 29.12.2015, declined to accept the Panchnama and directed a fresh inquiry by the Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur. Despite this direction, no re-inquiry was conducted; instead, the Mining Engineer sought approval for a demand of Rs.36,22,500/- on 15.05.2017, which was approved on 01.06.2017, and a demand notice was issued the same day. The petitioner filed an appeal with a stay application before the Additional Director Mines (Appellate Authority), but neither was decided. Despite the pending appeal and the matter being listed for hearing on 30.08.2017, the respondents cancelled the mining lease by order dated 22.08.2017 on the ground of non-payment of the demand, and on the same day directed the Mining Foreman to take possession. Possession was taken on 23.08.2017. The petitioners challenged these actions, alleging violation of natural justice, reliance on a rejected inquiry report, failure to supply a copy of the Panchnama, and arbitrary exercise of power. The respondent State argued that adequate opportunity was given through notices for demarcation and that the writ petitions were not maintainable because of an alternative remedy under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The court heard the arguments and perused the material on record. The provided excerpt ends at paragraph 10 after recording the submissions and stating that the court had heard counsel and perused the material; no final operative order is included in the available text. Interim orders staying the cancellation were in force in two of the petitions.
Headnote
A) Natural Justice - Rejection of Inquiry Report - Demand and Cancellation Based on Rejected Panchnama - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, Rule 48 - The Additional Director Mines (Vigilance) by letter dated 29.12.2015 refused to accept the Panchnama dated 04.09.2015 and directed fresh inquiry; no re-inquiry was conducted, yet demand of Rs.36,22,500/- was approved and mining lease cancelled for non-payment. Petitioners contended that reliance on the rejected report and failure to supply its copy violated natural justice; the court noted these allegations and the factual sequence (Paras 3, 5-8).
B) Administrative Law - Exercise of Power During Pendency of Appeal - Cancellation of Mining Lease - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, Section 65 - The mining lease was cancelled by order dated 22.08.2017 on the ground of non-deposit of demand, even though an appeal against the demand notice was pending before the appellate authority and the matter was listed for hearing on 30.08.2017. Petitioners argued that such action was arbitrary and violative of natural justice; respondent State contended that writ petition was not maintainable due to availability of efficacious remedy under Section 65 of the 2017 Rules (Paras 4, 7, 9).
C) Mining Law - Unauthorized Extraction - Computation of Quantity and Boundary Dispute - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, Rule 48 - Allegation of excavation of 15,750 tonnes outside the B-C boundary and in the gap area was based on Panchnama dated 04.09.2015; petitioner disputed the gap measurement as 40×100 square metres contrary to earlier survey showing 20×100 square metres for adjoining lease of Shri Chetan Singh Jhala. The court perused the available material and noted the conflicting factual positions (Paras 3, 8, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents could rely on a Panchnama report that had been rejected by the competent authority and for which a fresh inquiry had been directed, to raise a demand and cancel the mining lease; whether cancellation during pendency of appeal was arbitrary; and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite alternative remedy under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
Law Points
- Mining lease cancellation
- natural justice
- re-inquiry
- demand notice
- alternative remedy
- Article 226
- Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules
- unauthorized mining
- Panchnama report
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (08) 28
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10993/2017; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9009/2018; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9085/2017
Mr. Madhav Vyas, Mr. D.D. Thanvi, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
Ankit Agarwal, Smt. Meena Bansal
State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Jaipur; Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur; Mining Engineer, Sojat City, District Pali; Additional Director Mines, Environment and Development Appellate Authority, Directorate of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, Udaipur; Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City, District Pali
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the cancellation of a mining lease, recovery demand for alleged unauthorized excavation, and taking over possession of the mine.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 22.08.2017 cancelling the mining lease and directing possession takeover, quashing of demand notice dated 01.06.2017 and appellate order dated 05.06.2018, restoration of mining lease ML No. 20/2001, and costs.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the demand and cancellation were based on a Panchnama report dated 04.09.2015 which the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance) had refused to accept and directed a fresh inquiry; however, no re-inquiry was conducted, and the demand was raised and lease cancelled during pendency of appeal.
Previous Decisions
A coordinate bench of the High Court in SBCWP No.10993/2017 vide order dated 11.09.2017 stayed the order dated 22.08.2017; in SBCWP No.9085/2017 interim orders were passed on 01.08.2017; both interim orders were still in currency as per the judgment text.
Issues
Whether the respondents could rely on the Panchnama report dated 04.09.2015 after the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance) had declined to accept it and directed a fresh inquiry, without conducting such inquiry, to raise a demand and cancel the mining lease.
Whether cancellation of the mining lease during pendency of appeal against the demand notice was arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Additional Director declined to accept the Punchnama Report dated 04.09.2015 and directed fresh inquiry; direction for re-inquiry was communicated on 30.12.2015; despite that, respondents proceeded and raised demand; no re-inspection was conducted; appeal was pending; cancellation order was passed without due process; natural justice was violated; failure to furnish copy of Panchnama.
Respondent State argued that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing through notices dated 06.06.2016 and 22.07.2016 for demarcation by commissioner; commissioner inspected mines pursuant to a civil suit, so no separate re-inspection was necessary; writ petition was not maintainable due to efficacious remedy under Section 65 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
Judgment Excerpts
The order impugned dated 22.08.2017 (Annexure-14) passed by the respondent no. 2 cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
The Additional Director declined to accept the earlier inquiry report and directed that a fresh inquiry be conducted by the Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur.
The respondents proceeded to cancel the mining lease vide order dated 22.08.2017 on the ground that the demand had not been deposited and by a consequential order of the same date, directed that possession of the mining lease be taken over.
Writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious remedy under Section 65 of The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.
Procedural History
Mining lease for rhyolite near Village Modi Bhakari, Kharda, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali, was granted to Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal w.e.f. 12.02.1981, renewed for successive periods and later transferred to Smt. Vidhya Devi. After her death on 11.12.2011, the lease was mutated in favour of the petitioner on basis of a Will. Spot report dated 13.03.2014 indicated no unauthorized mining in preceding three years. Inspection on 04.09.2015 alleged excavation of 15,750 tonnes outside B-C boundary; Panchnama dated 04.09.2015 prepared. Notice dated 14.10.2015 issued alleging violation of Rule 48 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Petitioner replied on 04.11.2015. Petitioner obtained copy of Panchnama under Right to Information Act. Representation made before Additional Director Mines (Vigilance), Jaipur on 23.12.2015; Additional Director by letter dated 29.12.2015 declined to accept inquiry report and directed fresh inquiry by Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur. Communication dated 30.12.2015 informed concerned authority to keep further proceedings in abeyance in five matters. Respondent No.2 directed Superintending Mines Engineer (Vigilance) Jodhpur on 03.02.2016 to conduct inquiry. Despite direction, respondent No.3 sought approval for demand of Rs.36,22,500/- on 15.05.2017. Respondent No.2 approved on 01.06.2017 and respondent No.3 issued demand notice same day. Petitioner filed appeal with stay application before respondent No.4; neither decided. Petitioner filed SBCWP No.9488/2017 which was pending. Despite pending appeal and matter listed for hearing on 30.08.2017, respondents cancelled mining lease by order dated 22.08.2017 on ground of non-deposit of penalty. Same day respondent No.3 directed Mining Foreman to take possession; possession taken on 23.08.2017 at 10:00 AM. Petitioners filed present writ petitions. In SBCWP No.10993/2017, coordinate bench on 11.09.2017 stayed order dated 22.08.2017; in SBCWP No.9085/2017, interim orders passed on 01.08.2017. Respondent argued alternative remedy under Section 65 of 2017 Rules.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986: Rule 48
- Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017: Section 65
- Right to Information Act:
