Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, held Mining Lease No. 02/1993 for garnet mining since 2007 in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. The dispute arose after a spot inspection conducted on 06.04.2026 by the mining authorities, which led to allegations of discrepancy between estimated production and the quantity covered by e-Rawanas (transit permits). A show cause notice dated 10.04.2026 was issued, and simultaneously the petitioner's e-Rawana/e-Transit facility was deactivated. The petitioner challenged this action and the subsequent proceedings by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 06.04.2026, an inspection report was prepared alleging mismatch. The petitioner replied disputing the report on the ground that measurements were rough and inaccurate, specifically that the depth of a water-filled pit was visually estimated at approximately 10 metres whereas the actual depth was more than 16 metres, which materially inflated the estimated excavation quantity. The petitioner also contended that garnet recovery was assumed at a flat 10% rate though actual recovery varies from 10% to 15% depending on lease and pit conditions. A subsequent drone survey conducted on 03.06.2026 led to a notice dated 30.06.2026, which the petitioner alleged was defective due to incorrect mapping and non-supply of survey data and methodology. The petitioner argued that no speaking order had been passed, the e-Rawana deactivation was arbitrary, and the opportunity of hearing was illusory. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that a writ petition is not maintainable against a mere show cause notice, which does not by itself give rise to a cause of action unless wholly without jurisdiction. They submitted that the deactivation of the e-Rawana facility was an interim and precautionary measure to prevent further mismatch between excavated mineral and dispatch quantity pending final determination. The respondents contended that the action proposed was under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for recovery and termination of the mining lease, and not for suspension; therefore, the petitioner's reliance on Rule 11(2) and Rule 45(7) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 was misplaced. They relied on Entry 5 of the Schedule to Notification dated February 2002 (S.O. 342) delegating power under Section 24(1) of the MMDR Act to stop and check illegal movement of minerals, and on Clause 1 of the Office Order dated 27.02.2020 empowering deactivation of e-Rawana, with Clause 4 providing a representation remedy for reactivation. The respondents pointed out that the petitioner had not availed the representation remedy. The court identified the precise scope of controversy, noting that the petitioner raised substantial objections to the factual and technical basis of the proceedings, including measurements, depth assessment, recovery percentage, estimated excavation, comparison, and drone survey methodology. The court observed that these objections cannot be characterized as frivolous but their determination requires examination of technical material, mine plans, survey records, measurements, geological characteristics, production and dispatch records, e-Rawanna data, and methodology. Such an exercise is essentially fact-finding in nature and falls within the domain of competent mining authorities. The court stated that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it does not ordinarily undertake original technical adjudication merely because the correctness of a departmental inspection or survey is disputed. The court further noted that judicial review is available where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of statutory procedure, breach of principles of natural justice, or mala fides. The available excerpt of the judgment ends at this point, and no final decision or operative directions are recorded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Article 226 in technical disputes - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner challenged inspection report and drone survey alleging incorrect measurements and methodology - Court observed that objections are not frivolous but require examination of technical material, mine plans, survey records, geological characteristics, production and dispatch records, e-Rawanna data, and methodology; such fact-finding falls within domain of competent mining authorities and High Court under Article 226 does not ordinarily undertake original technical adjudication merely because correctness of departmental inspection or survey is disputed - Held that judicial review is available where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of statutory procedure, breach of principles of natural justice, or mala fides (Paras 14-16). B) Mines and Minerals - Suspension of Mining Operations - Procedural requirement under Rule 11(2) MCDR, 2017 - Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, Rule 11, Rule 11(2), Rule 45(7), Rule 45(7)(a) - Petitioner argued that before taking action under Rule 45(7), procedure under Rule 11 must be followed: written intimation, 45 days to rectify, show cause notice, 30 days for reply before suspension - Respondents contended action was under Section 21(5) of MMDR Act for recovery and termination, not suspension, and reliance on Rule 11/45 misplaced - Court noted issue of statutory procedure but final determination not available in excerpt (Paras 5, 8, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 to quash show cause notice and restore e-Rawana facility despite technical disputes and availability of alternative remedy; Whether respondents followed mandatory procedure under Rule 11 and Rule 45(7) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 before deactivating e-Rawana
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not ordinarily extend to original technical adjudication of departmental inspection or survey disputes
- Judicial review available for patent lack of jurisdiction
- violation of statutory procedure
- breach of natural justice
- or mala fides
- Show cause notice does not by itself give rise to cause of action unless wholly without jurisdiction
- Rule 11(2) of MCDR 2017 prescribes graded procedure before suspension
- Section 21(5) of MMDR Act used for recovery and termination
- Section 24(1) of MMDR Act delegates power to inspect and stop illegal movement
- Office Order dated 27.02.2020 empowers deactivation of e-Rawana and provides representation remedy
